Commonwealth v. Crayton
SimpleOriginal

Summary

Held that first-time in-court eyewitness identifications are generally inadmissible absent "good reason" because they function as highly suggestive showups, and ordered a new trial to avoid unfair prejudice.

2014 | State Juristiction

Commonwealth v. Crayton

Keywords eyewitness identification; inadmissible; suggestive; showups; unfair prejudice
Open Case as PDF

Summary

The court determined that initial eyewitness identifications made in court are typically not allowed unless there is a "good reason." This is because such identifications can strongly influence a witness, similar to a showup. To prevent unfair bias, a new trial was ordered.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The court determined that eyewitness identifications made for the first time in a courtroom are usually not allowed. This is because these identifications can be highly suggestive, similar to a "showup" where only one person is presented for identification. To prevent unfair bias, a new trial was ordered.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A court ruled that eyewitness identifications made for the first time in a courtroom are usually not allowed. This is because they are too much like a "showup," which can unfairly influence a witness. The court decided that a new trial was necessary to prevent any unfairness that might come from such an identification.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A court decided that people cannot usually identify a suspect for the first time in court. This is because doing so can make a witness unfairly pick someone. The court said this kind of identification is like a "showup," which is not fair. A new trial was ordered to make sure the process was just.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228, 21 N.E.3d 157 (2014)

Highlights