Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Cited for
At page 223 Requiring special procedures for in-court identifications6 citing casesnoting that defendants wishing to take advantage of its ruling must “move[ ] in a timely manner prior to trial for a lineup
- United States v. Morgan, 248 F. Supp. 3d 208 (D.D.C. 2017).published(noting that defendants wishing to take advantage of its ruling must “move[ ] in a timely manner prior to trial for a lineup)
- Jones v. West, 473 F. Supp. 2d 390 (W.D.N.Y. 2007).publishedOn rehearing, the Second Circuit clarified that it “wish[ed] to make it clear that in respect to that portion of [its] [prior] opinion relating to in-court procedures for identification[,] ... special procedures are necessary only where (1…
- Bond v. Walker, 68 F. Supp. 2d 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).published United States v. Archibald, 756 F.2d 223, 223 (2d Cir.1984) (emphasis added).
- People v. Monroe, 925 P.2d 767 (Colo. 1996).published(clarifying its earlier opinion, United States v. Archibald, 734 F.2d 938 (2d Cir.1984))
- Hogan v. State, 908 P.2d 925 (Wyo. 1995).publishedUnited States v. Archibald, 756 F.2d 223, 223 (2d Cir.1984).
- United States v. Franklin Evon Sebetich A/K/A Frank, Earl Dean, Jr., A/K/A Dooney, Michael John Buhovecky, 776 F.2d 412 (3d Cir. 1985).published(modifying earlier opinion in the case)
q1 “the defendant has moved in a timely manner prior to trial for a lineup.”0 citing cases
Other citing cases
- Commonwealth v. Crayton, 21 N.E.3d 157 (Mass. 2014).published
- United States v. Peeples, 962 F.3d 677 (2d Cir. 2020).published
- Edwards v. Marshall, 589 F. Supp. 2d 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).published
- United States v. Ruggiero, 824 F. Supp. 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).published
- United States v. Raymond Ray Spencer, 956 F.2d 279 (10th Cir. 1992).published
- United States v. Gary Stephen Domina, 784 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir. 1986).published
- Jacques Lamar Walker v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 1211204 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2022).published
- United States v. Wilson, 493 F. Supp. 2d 364 (E.D.N.Y 2006).published
- Richard W. Dunnigan v. John P. Keane, Superintendent, Sing Sing Corr. Facility, 137 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 1998).published
- United States v. Michael Lee Matthews & Robert G. Prater, 20 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 1994).published
Show 1 more citing case
- United States v. Viscioso, 711 F. Supp. 740 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).published
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Robert ARCHIBALD
v.
Robert ARCHIBALD
Calendar No. 863, Docket 83-1356.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 16, 1984.
Published opinion
Kaufman, Oakes, Winter.
Cited by 41 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial… (1)
Before IRVING R. KAUFMAN, OAKES and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
Order On Petition For Rehearing
We wish to make it clear in respect to that portion of our opinion relating to in-court procedures for identification that special procedures are necessary only where (1) identification is a contested issue; (2) the defendant has moved in a timely manner prior to trial for a lineup; and (3) despite that defense request, the witness has not had an opportunity to view a fair out-of-court lineup prior to his trial testimony or ruling on the fairness of the out-of-court lineup has been reserved. Subject to this modification of the opinion, 734 F.2d 938, the petition for rehearing is denied.