Neil v. Biggers
SimpleOriginal

Summary

The Supreme Court held that an eyewitness identification obtained through suggestive a procedure is admissible if, under the totality of circumstances, it is sufficiently reliable to avoid a substantial likelihood of misidentification.

1972 | Federal Juristiction

Neil v. Biggers

Keywords eyewitness identification; suggestive procedure; admissible; totality of circumstances; misidentification
Open Case as PDF

Summary

The Supreme Court determined that an eyewitness identification, even if obtained through a suggestive process, can be used in court. This is permissible if, considering all the surrounding factors, the identification is dependable enough to prevent a significant chance of an incorrect identification.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The Supreme Court determined that if an eyewitness identification is obtained using a method that might influence the witness, it can still be used as evidence. This is allowed if, after looking at all the facts, the identification is considered dependable enough to prevent a high chance of a mistaken identity.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The Supreme Court decided that if an eyewitness identifies someone using a method that might influence their choice, this identification can still be used in court. This is allowed if, after looking at all the facts, the identification is dependable enough to prevent a high chance of someone being wrongly identified.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The Supreme Court decided that if a witness identifies someone in a way that might lead them to pick the wrong person, that identification can still be used in court. This is allowed if, after looking at all the facts, the identification seems dependable enough that it is not likely to be a mistake.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)

Highlights