PRETRIAL IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES - THE EXPANDED DUTY TO DISCLOSE FAVORABLE EVIDENCE

• NCJ Number: 18154
• Journal: NOTRE DAME LAWYER Volume: 50 Issue: 3 Dated: (FEBRUARY 1975) Pages: 508-518
• Author(s): P T DUERR
• Date Published: 1975
• Length: 11 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Notre Dame
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

DISCUSSION OF THE 1974 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULING THAT THE DEFENSE SHOULD BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISPLAY THE INABILITY OF A PROSECUTION EYEWITNESS TO SELECT THE DEFENDANT IN A PRETRIAL LINEUP.

Abstract

IN EVANS V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, THE COURT HELD THAT THE PROSECUTOR'S DUTY TO DISCLOSE PROVIDES A VALID CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT TO SUPPLY THE DEFENDANT WITH A PRETRIAL IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE UPON THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST. THE OBJECTIONS TO INTERPRETING THE DUTY TO DISCLOSE AS INCLUDING THE DUTY TO PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES ARE EXAMINED AND REFUTED BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE DUTY IN OTHER CONTEXTS. ALSO DISCUSSED ARE THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE DISCLOSURE PRINCIPLE APPLIES ONLY TO EXISTING FAVORABLE EVIDENCE, AND NOT TH THE PRETRIAL STAGE. THIS POSITION IS HELD AS UNTENABLE BASED ON THE UNDERLYING POLICY OF FAIRNESS TO THE DEFENDANT.