green
Positive treatment
3.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Lobban
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the lineup procedure was not “so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that he was denied due process of law” (Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293, 302 ; see, People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184 , cert denied 396 US 1020 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Smith
This was relevant to the accuracy of the officer’s description and identification of defendant, which were issues presented at trial (People v Vasquez, 236 AD2d 202 , lv denied 89 NY2d 1041 ; see, People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184, 195-196 , cert denied 396 US 1020 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Graham
Such accidental " 'showups’ have been held to be 'not unnecessarily or impermissibly suggestive since unavoidable and not due to the fault of the police or prosecutor.’ (Sobel, Eye Witness Identification, p 74; Mock v Rose, 472 F2d 619.)” (People v Gonzalez, 61 AD2d 666, 671 , affd 46 NY2d 1011 ; see People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184, 193 , cert den 396 US 1020 ; People v La Brake, 51 AD2d 609 .) Nor does it appear that the identification was the product of suggestion.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Morales
Cummings v Zelker, 455 F2d 714, 716, cert den 406 US 927 [prompt on the scene confrontation]; see People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184, 194 , cert den 396 US 1020 ) since it assured that an innocent man was not incarcerated by someone else’s mistake.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Dominguez
(2×)
While "[i]t is not improper to admit an arrest photo to show that the defendant's appearance had changed from the time of his arrest" ( People v McCorkel , 164 AD2d 799 [1st Dept 1990]; see also People v Logan , 25 NY2d 184, 195-196 [1969], cert denied 396 US 1020 [1970]), the court erred in admitting multiple arrest photos from three prior arrests.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Boyd
In any event, the pretrial encounter between the defendant and the complainant was not a "police-arranged confrontation” (People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 552 ; see also, People v Decker, 134 AD2d 511 ), but was rather a "mere happenstance unoccasioned by law enforcement officials” (People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184, 193 , cert denied 396 US 1020 ; see also, People v Decker, supra).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Rios
The defendant’s motion for a Wade hearing was properly denied because the identification was made spontaneously and was not the product of an identification procedure arranged by the police (see, e.g., People v Morales, 113 AD2d 956 ; People v Dukes, 97 AD2d 445 ; see also, People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184, 193 , cert denied 396 US 1020 ; People v Robinson, 117 AD2d 826 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Sivels
The second identification occurred after the police pursued the fleeing defendant and brought him back to where the complainant and other perpetrators were located, and was merely the complainant’s confirmation that the defendant was the same person whom he had previously identified as the assailant (see, People v Soto, 87 AD2d 618 ; see also, People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184 , cert denied 396 US 1020 , rearg dismissed 27 NY2d 733 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jaegers
v.
California
v.
California
No. 982.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 12, 1970.
396 U.S. 1020
DeWitt F. Blase for petitioner.
Published
Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.