Neil V Biggers Case Study

938 Words4 Pages
Certain guidelines that the case of Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S.188, 93 S. Ct. 375 (1972) has been provided to other cases when dealing with this sort of incident. The guidelines are: 1) The opportunity of the witnesses to view the criminal at the time of the crime (Neil v. Biggers , 1972) 2) The witness’ degree of attention (Neil v. Biggers , 1972) 3) The accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal (Neil v. Biggers , 1972) 4) The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation (Neil v. Biggers , 1972) 5) The length of time between the crime and the confrontation (Neil v. Biggers , 1972) Darrin mills is a prisoner in Michigan state, who is serving a life sentence based on the several convictions…show more content…
As the Michigan Court of Appeals had not delivered a full acceptable submission of Neil v. Biggers (Neil v. Biggers , 1972) to the actual evidences in this specific case, the federal judge did so in the reference given to the district court. The analysis would be to go over the pretrial identification process, and make sure if does not violate any of the defendant’s right to due process. If the court then determines that the ID was unjustifiably suggestive, it would use the five specific factors (described above) in the Neil v. Biggers case (Neil v. Biggers , 1972) to determine the reliability of the identification. The events upon the identification must be taken into question by the judge and evaluated contrary to any corrupting result of the suggestive identification (Mills v. Cason, 2008-2009). One of the main factors that were taken into consideration was the nine month postponement between the preliminary observation and the challenged identification, which in the case of Neil v. Biggers (seven month delay) , would be a extremely negative factor in most cases (Neil v. Biggers , 1972). Although this is true, because of the extent of appalling evidence found against the culprits, the identification was admissible in court and that habeas relief was properly denied in this case. ReferenceMills v.

More about Neil V Biggers Case Study

Open Document