Wade hearing in New Jersey

2026Counsel stated, "I did not subpoena [I.T.] and there's a reason why . . . ." Defense counsel explained he was not certain whether I.T.'s guardian would make the child available to testify and confirmed, "I'm not going to be calling the boy." The trial court denied defendant's Wade motion and concluded that the standards set forth in State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011), were satisfied.

2025Dougherty testified that there was no "question in [her] mind as to who[m] they thought the shooter was before [she] showed them th[e] photograph[s]." After outlining the governing legal principles, including the expanded number of factors announced in State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 248-72 (2011), informing the court's determination of the reliability of identification evidence and specifically identifying eight system and ten estimator variables, the judge terminated the Wade hearing and found "defendant's allegation of improper suggestiveness . . . groundless." See Henderson, 208 N.J. at

2026The trial court conducts a Wade hearing to determine the admissibility of the out-of- court identifications." State v. Micelli, 215 N.J. 284, 288 (2013); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).

2026The trial court conducts a Wade hearing to determine the admissibility of the out-of- court identifications." State v. Micelli, 215 N.J. 284, 288 (2013); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).

2026The trial court conducts a Wade hearing to determine the admissibility of the out-of- court identifications." State v. Micelli, 215 N.J. 284, 288 (2013); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).

2026The trial court conducts a Wade hearing to determine the admissibility of the out-of- court identifications." State v. Micelli, 215 N.J. 284, 288 (2013); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).

2025State v. Ruffin, 371 N.J.

2025State v. Ruffin, 371 N.J.

2024The trial court conducts a Wade hearing to determine the admissibility of the out-of-court identifications." State v. Micelli, 215 N.J. 284, 288 (2013) (citing State v. Ortiz, 203 N.J.

2024The trial court conducts a Wade hearing to determine the admissibility of the out-of-court identifications." State v. Micelli, 215 N.J. 284, 288 (2013) (citing State v. Ortiz, 203 N.J.

2018"Procedurally, a defendant must first 'proffer . . . some evidence of impermissible suggestiveness' to be entitled to a Wade hearing." Henderson, 208 N.J. at 238 (quoting State v. Rodriquez, 264 N.J.

2018"Procedurally, a defendant must first 'proffer . . . some evidence of impermissible suggestiveness' to be entitled to a Wade hearing." Henderson, 208 N.J. at 238 (quoting State v. Rodriquez, 264 N.J.

2021To obtain a Wade hearing, a defendant must "present some evidence of suggestiveness tied to a system variable which could lead to a mistaken identification." State v. Anthony, 237 N.J. 213, 233 (2019) (citing State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 288-89 (2011)).

2021To obtain a Wade hearing, a defendant must "present some evidence of suggestiveness tied to a system variable which could lead to a mistaken identification." State v. Anthony, 237 N.J. 213, 233 (2019) (citing State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 288-89 (2011)).

2018If, at the Wade hearing, the "court decides the procedure 'was in fact impermissibly suggestive,' it then considers the reliability factors." Ibid. (citing Madison, 109 N.J. at 232 ).

2018One hundred percent this is the person." The State argues that this is not a Wade issue as the photo presented to the owner was intended to confirm the identity of the person that the owner was referring to, and not to identify a stranger "based on his observations as involved in any particular incident." The State further claims that this procedure was not A-2446-16T1 10 a "show-up," as show-ups "are essentially single-person lineups: a single suspect is presented to a witness to make an identification." Id. at 259 .

2022Our Supreme Court has noted a Wade hearing is not required for a "confirmatory" identification because such an identification "not considered suggestive." State v. Pressley, 232 N.J. 587, 592 (2018).

2022Our Supreme Court has noted a Wade hearing is not required for a "confirmatory" identification because such an identification "not considered suggestive." State v. Pressley, 232 N.J. 587, 592 (2018).

2022It “is to examine police procedures surrounding an out-of-court identification of the defendant for a taint of suggestiveness,” Lynn v. Bliden, 443 F.3d 238, 249 (2d Cir. 2006), and, if the procedures were suggestive, to ascertain the identification’s reliability, State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 238 (2011).

2022It “is to examine police procedures surrounding an out-of-court identification of the defendant for a taint of suggestiveness,” Lynn v. Bliden, 443 F.3d 238, 249 (2d Cir. 2006), and, if the procedures were suggestive, to ascertain the identification’s reliability, State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 238 (2011).

2022See Owens, 484 U.S. at 559-602 . 13 Last, none of the circuit cases cited by the majority support its conclusion that a witness’s statement at a Wade hearing is admissible at trial when the witness is unavailable.

2022See Owens, 484 U.S. at 559-602 . 13 Last, none of the circuit cases cited by the majority support its conclusion that a witness’s statement at a Wade hearing is admissible at trial when the witness is unavailable.

2018Thus, the judge did not abuse his discretion by den ying defendant's motion for a Wade hearing, and the identification procedure did not result in a "very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Cherry, 289 N.J.

2018Thus, the judge did not abuse his discretion by den ying defendant's motion for a Wade hearing, and the identification procedure did not result in a "very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Cherry, 289 N.J.

2018At the conclusion of the Wade hearing, citing State v. Herrera,5 187 N.J. 493, 504 , (2006), the trial judge determined that although one-on-one show- ups are inherently suggestive, the eyewitnesses' identifications were sufficiently reliable to be admissible.

2018At the conclusion of the Wade hearing, citing State v. Herrera,5 187 N.J. 493, 504 , (2006), the trial judge determined that although one-on-one show- ups are inherently suggestive, the eyewitnesses' identifications were sufficiently reliable to be admissible.

2022Turning to defendant's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for a Wade hearing and to suppress evidence, the judge noted, "defendant simply assert[ed] that the motion . . . 'would have established that the evidence was obtained illegally, and that the motion to suppress would have shown that the photo lineup that was put to identify the defendant was not in accordance with the procedures of the court.'" However, according to the judge, defendant failed to "identify or even allude to what evidence should have been suppressed, or the improper manner in which the

2020"The failure to raise unsuccessful legal arguments does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel." State v. Worlock, 117 N.J. 596, 625 (1990); see also, State v. Taimanglo, 403 N.J.

2021See State v. Fisher, 156 N.J. 494, 501 (1998) ("when counsel fails to file a suppression motion, the defendant not only must satisfy both parts of the Strickland test but also must prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious") (citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)); State v. Roper, 378 N.J.

2021See State v. Fisher, 156 N.J. 494, 501 (1998) ("when counsel fails to file a suppression motion, the defendant not only must satisfy both parts of the Strickland test but also must prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious") (citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)); State v. Roper, 378 N.J.

2021See State v. Fisher, 156 N.J. 494, 501 (1998) ("when counsel fails to file a suppression motion, the defendant not only must satisfy both parts of the Strickland test but also must prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious") (citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)); State v. Roper, 378 N.J.

2021See State v. Fisher, 156 N.J. 494, 501 (1998) ("when counsel fails to file a suppression motion, the defendant not only must satisfy both parts of the Strickland test but also must prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious") (citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)); State v. Roper, 378 N.J.

2020Although we have the authority under Henderson to determine that identification evidence should not have been admitted and to reverse a conviction, ibid., we decline to exercise original jurisdiction in this case, see State v. Micelli, 215 N.J. 284, 293 (2013) (holding the Appellate Division panel improperly exercised original jurisdiction by weighing evidence and making factual findings pertaining to a Wade hearing (citing Cannuscio v. Claridge Hotel & Casino, 319 N.J.

2020Although we have the authority under Henderson to determine that identification evidence should not have been admitted and to reverse a conviction, ibid., we decline to exercise original jurisdiction in this case, see State v. Micelli, 215 N.J. 284, 293 (2013) (holding the Appellate Division panel improperly exercised original jurisdiction by weighing evidence and making factual findings pertaining to a Wade hearing (citing Cannuscio v. Claridge Hotel & Casino, 319 N.J.

2019Wade, 388 U.S. at 241-42 ; accord State v. Michaels, 136 N.J. 299, 320 (1994).

2019Wade, 388 U.S. at 241-42 ; accord State v. Michaels, 136 N.J. 299, 320 (1994).

1989At the close of a Wade hearing the trial judge properly measured the evidence against the standards set forth in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198 , 93 S.Ct. 375, 381 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401, 410 (1972), and found that the identifications were not “so unnecessarily suggestive or conducive to irreparable mistaken identification as to constitute a denial of due process.” We must sustain the judge’s findings because, from our review of the transcript of the hearing, they “could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record.” State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)

1989At the close of a Wade hearing the trial judge properly measured the evidence against the standards set forth in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198 , 93 S.Ct. 375, 381 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401, 410 (1972), and found that the identifications were not “so unnecessarily suggestive or conducive to irreparable mistaken identification as to constitute a denial of due process.” We must sustain the judge’s findings because, from our review of the transcript of the hearing, they “could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record.” State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)

2020The court provided the standard for analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), as adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987), and explained the merits of any putative motion for a Wade hearing or to suppress the out-of-court identifications must be analyzed under the standard adopted in Manson and Madison.

2020The court provided the standard for analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), as adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987), and explained the merits of any putative motion for a Wade hearing or to suppress the out-of-court identifications must be analyzed under the standard adopted in Manson and Madison.

2020Under those standards, the Court modified the Henderson requirements for obtaining a Wade hearing and, in private-actor cases, required "a higher, initial threshold of suggestiveness to trigger a hearing, namely, some evidence of highly suggestive circumstances as opposed to simply suggestive conduct." Id. at 327 .

2020Under those standards, the Court modified the Henderson requirements for obtaining a Wade hearing and, in private-actor cases, required "a higher, initial threshold of suggestiveness to trigger a hearing, namely, some evidence of highly suggestive circumstances as opposed to simply suggestive conduct." Id. at 327 .

2020The court provided the standard for analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), as adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987), and explained the merits of any putative motion for a Wade hearing or to suppress the out-of-court identifications must be analyzed under the standard adopted in Manson and Madison.

2020The court provided the standard for analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), as adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987), and explained the merits of any putative motion for a Wade hearing or to suppress the out-of-court identifications must be analyzed under the standard adopted in Manson and Madison.

2018Id. at 9 Defendant did not raise N.J.R.E. 803(a)(3) at the pretrial Wade hearing.

1968The question was regarded as open in State v. Matlack, 49 N.J. 491, 499 (1967).

2017The State responds that "[d]efendant invited the error he now challenges" because he "never requested a Wade hearing and, instead, simply challenged the State's motion in limine to admit [T.J.'s] out-of-court identifications." It further contends defendant "made a sound strategic decision . . . not to push the suppression issue and opted to have the full opportunity to cross- examine [T.J.]." Historically, courts followed the United States Supreme Court's two-part test to determine the admissibility of an eyewitness's out-of-court photographic identification, set forth in Manson v. Brathwaite,

2017The State responds that "[d]efendant invited the error he now challenges" because he "never requested a Wade hearing and, instead, simply challenged the State's motion in limine to admit [T.J.'s] out-of-court identifications." It further contends defendant "made a sound strategic decision . . . not to push the suppression issue and opted to have the full opportunity to cross- examine [T.J.]." Historically, courts followed the United States Supreme Court's two-part test to determine the admissibility of an eyewitness's out-of-court photographic identification, set forth in Manson v. Brathwaite,