Citation network
Manson Vs. Brathwaite
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 16, 1977
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 98 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Manson v. BrathwaiteSearch
-
U.S. 98 (1977) Manson v. BrathwaiteSearch
-
determining the admissibility of identification testimony for confrontations occurring both prior to and after Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
to be weighed against the corrupting effect of the suggestive procedure in assessing reliability are set out in Neil v. BiggersSearch
-
Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
evidence obtained by a police procedure that was both suggestive and unnecessary. This Court's decisions in Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
U. S. 293 (1967), and Neil v. BiggersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 103 more than nine years. His conviction was affirmed per curiam by the Supreme Court of Connecticut. State v. BrathwaiteSearch
-
court's view, the evidence was unreliable in any event. We granted certiorari. 425 U.S. 957 (1976). II Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
U.S. at 388 U. S. 302 . Page 432 U. S. 105 Neil v. BiersSearch
-
protection against the admission of evidence derived from suggestive identification procedures, namely, Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
and Coleman v. AlabamaSearch
-
F.2d at 371. See Smith v. CoinerSearch
-
F.2d 877, 882 (CA4), cert. denied sub nom. Wallace v. SmithSearch
-
excludes relevant evidence from consideration and evaluation by the trier of fact. See United States ex rel. Kirby v. SturgesSearch
-
Stanley v. CoxSearch
-
F.2d 48 Page 432 U. S. 111 (CA4 1973), cert. denied sub nom. Stanley v. SlaytonSearch
-
are, of course, several interests to be considered and taken into account. The driving force behind United States v. WadeSearch
-
U. S. 218 (1967), Gilbert v. CaliforniaSearch
-
been viewed recently by this Court with unlimited enthusiasm. See, for example, the several opinions in Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
U. S. 387 (1977). See also United States v. JanisSearch
-
after all, is that of fairness as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See United States v. LovascoSearch
-
Although identifications arising from single-photograph displays may be viewed in general with suspicion, see Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
The Fourth Circuit's then very recent decision in Smith v. CoinerSearch
-
evidence deriving from a constitutional violation do not bear on the instant problem. See United States ex rel. Kirby v. SturgesSearch
-
Clemons v. UnitedSearch
-
Court's opinion, I would emphasize two points. First, as I indicated in my opinion in United States ex rel. Kirby v. SturgesSearch
-
be considered to support the admissibility of eyewitness testimony when applying the criteria identified in Neil v. BiggersSearch
-
the Court dismantle the protections against mistaken eyewitness testimony erected a decade ago in United States v. WadeSearch
-
and Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
resulting from the admission of mistaken eyewitness identification evidence at criminal trials. United States v. WadeSearch
-
Ibid. The Court did so in Wade and Gilbert v. CaliforniaSearch
-
is the fundamental fact of Judicial experience ignored by the Court today. Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
forbids a lineup that is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification. Stovall v. DennoSearch
-
of due process protections against mistaken identification evidence, begun in Stovall, was continued in Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
This distinction between Stovall and Simmons was preserved in two succeeding cases. Foster v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Id. at 443 (emphasis added). In contrast, in Coleman v. AlabamaSearch
-
The Court inexplicably seemed to erase the distinction between Stovall and Simmons situations in Neil v. BiggersSearch
-
he primary evil to be avoided is 'a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.' Simmons v. UnitedSearch
-
could be accomplished, however, only by ignoring the fact that Stovall, fortified only months earlier by Kirby v. IllinoisSearch
-
a grave threat to society at large in a more direct way than most governmental disobedience of the law, see Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
whether an error of constitutional magnitude was nevertheless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial