Introduction

The scientific community has reached consensus that showups—and in particular, stationhouse showups—are inherently suggestive, dispense with scientifically-sound practices, and profoundly impact the reliability of eyewitness identification. Thus, it should be no surprise that mistaken identifications from showups have led to a large number of wrongful convictions. See Garrett, Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong 55 (2011) (finding that among the first 250 wrongful conviction cases established by DNA evidence, 33 percent of mistaken identification cases involved a showup). The admission of highly unreliable testimony stemming from impermissibly suggestive stationhouse showup identifications casts significant doubt on the integrity of convictions such as that of Mr. Sammons. Indeed, given the close association between showups, witness misidentification, and wrongful convictions, showups should rarely—if ever—be conducted. In the limited circumstances in which evidence of a showup may be deemed admissible, courts should still review whether officers conducting the showup followed appropriate protocols.

This Court has asked the parties to address: (1) if the stationhouse showup identification procedure here was impermissibly suggestive; (2) if the identification itself was sufficiently reliable so that it was properly admitted even if the procedure itself was impermissibly suggestive; and (3) if the identification was improperly admitted, whether it was more probable than not that the erroneous admission of the identification affected the outcome of the trial. Otherwise put, this Court must decide if, under the totality of the circumstances involved in this case, the stationhouse showup caused a substantial likelihood of misidentification. People v Kurylczyk, 443 Mich 289, 302; 505 NW2d 528 (1993). In doing so, this Court must consider advances in scientific research that indicate that showups are profoundly suggestive, inherently unreliable, and present an elevated risk of wrongful conviction. If this Court finds the stationhouse showup was impermissibly suggestive and it was not necessary to conduct such a procedure, Perry v New Hampshire, 565 US 228, 238-239 (2012), it must then determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the witness’s ability to identify the offender is so reliable that it outweighs the corrupting effect of the suggestive circumstances. See id. at 232.

At the time that the showup was conducted in this case, Mr. Sammons was already in custody and being interviewed by the police, while the witness was available and already at the stationhouse with his legal guardian. Thus, it was completely unnecessary for the police to forgo the use of a proper, nonsuggestive lineup procedure5 and instead to use an inherently suggestive showup that scientific research now shows undoubtedly increased the chances of misidentification.

A properly-designed photo array that would test the accuracy of the witness’s memory was abandoned in favor of a highly suggestive showup. The witness thus very likely concluded that law enforcement must have had a reason for singling Mr. Sammons out, and the pressure to identify Mr. Sammons was only intensified when the witness was escorted past the interrogation room without his legal guardian present while being spoken to by law enforcement.

Most crucially, the witness himself did not identify Mr. Sammons as the shooter in court and testified that he could not and never did identify Mr. Sammons as the shooter. Therefore, the only testimony that the witness ever identified Mr. Sammons came from the detective who conducted the unconstitutionally suggestive showup. That testimony, which derives directly from the tainted showup procedure, cannot possibly erase the corrupting effect of the showup that took place in this case.

Introduction

Experts widely agree that showups, especially those at police stations, are highly likely to influence witnesses and do not follow good scientific practices. This significantly affects how reliable an eyewitness identification can be. Because of this, incorrect identifications from showups have often led to people being wrongly convicted. For instance, in a study of 250 wrongful convictions proven by DNA evidence, showups were involved in 33% of cases where an identification was mistaken. Allowing unreliable testimony that comes from overly suggestive stationhouse showups raises serious questions about whether convictions are fair, such as in the case of Mr. Sammons. Given the strong link between showups, mistaken identifications, and wrongful convictions, these procedures should almost never be used. If showup evidence is permitted in a limited situation, courts should still check if officers followed the correct procedures.

The Court has requested a review of specific questions: first, whether the stationhouse showup procedure was excessively suggestive; second, if the identification was reliable enough to be allowed, even if the procedure itself was overly suggestive; and third, if the identification was wrongly allowed, whether it is more likely than not that this error changed the trial's outcome. In essence, the Court must determine if, considering all the circumstances, the stationhouse showup created a significant risk of an incorrect identification. To make this decision, the Court must consider new scientific findings that show showups are very suggestive, inherently unreliable, and greatly increase the chance of wrongful convictions. If the Court finds the stationhouse showup was excessively suggestive and unnecessary, it must then decide if the witness's ability to identify the person is so strong that it overcomes the negative impact of the suggestive conditions.

When the showup in this case happened, Mr. Sammons was already in police custody and being questioned. The witness was also at the police station with a legal guardian. Therefore, it was not necessary for the police to skip a proper, unbiased lineup and instead use a showup, which scientific research now confirms greatly increases the chance of a wrong identification.

A photo lineup designed to properly test the witness's memory was not used. Instead, a very suggestive showup was performed. This likely made the witness think that the police had a specific reason for singling out Mr. Sammons. The pressure to identify Mr. Sammons became even stronger when the witness was led past the interrogation room without a legal guardian and spoken to by police officers.

Most importantly, the witness did not identify Mr. Sammons as the shooter in court and stated that an identification was never made. Thus, the only testimony claiming the witness identified Mr. Sammons came from the detective who conducted the highly suggestive showup. This testimony, which comes directly from the flawed showup procedure, cannot eliminate the negative effects of the showup that occurred in this situation.

Introduction

Experts widely agree that showups, especially those conducted at a police station, are likely to influence a witness's identification and are not based on sound scientific practices. These issues significantly impact how reliable an eyewitness identification can be. This is why incorrect identifications from showups have often led to people being wrongly convicted. For instance, in an analysis of the first 250 wrongful convictions proven by DNA evidence, showups were involved in 33% of cases where an identification was mistaken. The use of unreliable testimony from suggestive showup identifications at police stations raises serious doubts about the fairness of convictions, such as Mr. Sammons's. Given the strong link between showups, witness misidentification, and wrongful convictions, these procedures should almost never be used. If evidence from a showup is allowed in court, judges should still check if officers followed proper steps when conducting it.

The Court has requested a review of three main points: first, whether the showup identification at the police station was improperly suggestive; second, if the identification was reliable enough to be used even if the procedure was suggestive; and third, if the identification was wrongly used, whether this error likely changed the trial's outcome. In simpler terms, the Court must determine if, considering all aspects of this case, the police station showup made it highly probable that the witness would make an incorrect identification. To do this, the Court must consider new scientific findings that show showups are very suggestive, not reliable, and increase the risk of wrongful convictions. If the Court finds the showup was improperly suggestive and not necessary, it must then decide if the witness's ability to identify the offender is so reliable that it outweighs the negative impact of the suggestive circumstances.

When the showup in this case occurred, Mr. Sammons was already in police custody and being questioned. The witness was also available at the police station with a legal guardian. This meant there was no need for the police to skip a proper, non-suggestive lineup procedure. Instead, they used a showup, which scientific research now confirms significantly increased the chances of a mistaken identification.

A well-designed photo array, which would have accurately tested the witness's memory, was bypassed in favor of a highly suggestive showup. This likely led the witness to believe that law enforcement had a specific reason to focus on Mr. Sammons. The pressure to identify Mr. Sammons was intensified when the witness was led past the interrogation room without a legal guardian present while being spoken to by law enforcement.

Most importantly, the witness did not identify Mr. Sammons as the shooter in court and stated that an identification was never made. Therefore, the only evidence that the witness ever identified Mr. Sammons came from the detective who conducted the unconstitutionally suggestive showup. This testimony, which comes directly from the flawed showup procedure, cannot eliminate the harmful effect of the showup in this case.

Summary

Experts agree that "showups," especially those at a police station, are very likely to lead to mistaken identifications. These showups often ignore good scientific practices and greatly affect how reliable an eyewitness's memory is. Because of this, many wrongful convictions have resulted from incorrect identifications made during showups. For example, out of the first 250 wrongful convictions proven by DNA evidence, 33% of those with mistaken identifications involved a showup. When unreliable testimony from a problematic showup identification is allowed in court, it raises serious questions about whether a conviction, such as Mr. Sammons's, is fair. Given how closely showups are linked to witness mistakes and wrongful convictions, they should almost never happen. If evidence from a showup is allowed, courts should still check if officers followed proper rules.

The Court has asked for answers to three questions: (1) Was the police station showup procedure too suggestive? (2) If the procedure was too suggestive, was the identification still reliable enough to be used in court? (3) If the identification was wrongly allowed, did that error likely change the trial's outcome? In simpler terms, the Court must decide if, considering everything that happened, the showup at the police station created a high chance of a mistaken identification. When making this decision, the Court needs to consider new scientific findings that show showups are very suggestive, not reliable, and increase the risk of wrongful convictions. If the Court finds the showup was too suggestive and not needed, it must then decide if the witness's ability to identify the person is so strong that it makes up for the problematic situation.

At the time of the showup, Mr. Sammons was already in police custody and being questioned. The witness was also at the police station with a legal guardian. This meant there was no need for the police to skip a proper, fair lineup procedure. Instead, they used a showup, which scientific research now clearly shows increased the likelihood of a mistaken identification.

The police chose a highly suggestive showup instead of a properly designed photo lineup that would have better tested the witness's memory. This likely led the witness to believe that the police had a specific reason for singling out Mr. Sammons. The pressure to identify Mr. Sammons grew even stronger when the witness was led past the interrogation room without a legal guardian and was spoken to by officers.

Most importantly, the witness did not identify Mr. Sammons as the shooter in court and stated that an identification was never made. Therefore, the only evidence that the witness identified Mr. Sammons came from the detective who conducted the showup. This testimony, which comes directly from the flawed showup process, cannot remove the harmful effects of the showup that occurred in this case.

Summary

Experts agree that "showups" can cause big problems with how people identify suspects. A showup is when police show a witness just one person, not a group. This makes it easy for the witness to make a mistake. Many people have been wrongly put in jail because of mistakes made during showups.

When a showup happens, it can make a witness point to the wrong person. This makes people wonder if someone like Mr. Sammons was wrongly found guilty. Because showups are so risky, they should almost never be used. If a showup's results are used, courts should check if the police followed the rules.

The court needs to answer three questions. First, was the way the police showed Mr. Sammons to the witness unfair? Second, was the witness's identification still good enough, even if the showup was unfair? Third, if the identification was used unfairly, did it change the outcome of the trial? The court must think about what scientists have learned: showups often cause mistakes and can lead to innocent people going to jail.

In this case, Mr. Sammons was already held by the police, and the witness was at the police station with an adult helper. So, the police did not need to use a showup. They could have used a fairer method, like a lineup, where a witness looks at several people. This would have been better and would have made it less likely for a mistake to happen.

Instead of a fair way to test the witness's memory, the police used a showup. This likely made the witness think the police already believed Mr. Sammons was guilty. The witness felt even more pressure when taken past the room where Mr. Sammons was, and the adult helper was not there.

The most important thing is that the witness later said in court that they could not and did not identify Mr. Sammons as the person who shot someone. The only person who said the witness identified Mr. Sammons was the detective who did the unfair showup. This detective's words cannot make the unfair showup right.