This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Perry v. New Hampshire: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|arguments=Perry contended that the officer's questioning was suggestive and witness identification was unreliable. | |arguments=Perry contended that the officer's questioning was suggestive and witness identification was unreliable. | ||
|holding=The reliability of identification of witness isn't important; the main question is whether or not there is coercive misconduct to obtain a confession. | |holding=The reliability of identification of witness isn't important; the main question is whether or not there is coercive misconduct to obtain a confession. | ||
|judgment=Eyewitness identification is accepted in the absence of coercion regardless of its accuracy. | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 19:47, October 4, 2022
| Perry v. New Hampshire | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | January 11, 2012 |
Facts
Police is dispatched to investigate a car robbery. A suspect named Perry was seen by a police officer in the vicinity of a smashed car window; Perry had a bat and a car stereo.
A witness identified Perry as the perpetrator of the stereo theft from the car.Arguments
Perry contended that the officer's questioning was suggestive and witness identification was unreliable.
Holding
The reliability of identification of witness isn't important; the main question is whether or not there is coercive misconduct to obtain a confession.
Judgment
Eyewitness identification is accepted in the absence of coercion regardless of its accuracy.
