Biggers factors in Illinois

2026Johnson, 2024 IL App (1st) 220494, ¶ 69 . ¶ 64 The so-called “Biggers factors” are: (1) “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime,” (2) “the witness’[s] degree of attention,” (3) “the accuracy of the witness’[s] prior description of the criminal, (4) “the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation,” and (5) “the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 .

2024People v. Guerrero, 2020 IL App (1st) 172156 ¶ 32 (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)). ¶ 52 Gardner maintains that under the Biggers factors, the identifications could not support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

2026See Perry, 565 U.S. at 246 (“Eyewitness-specific jury instructions, which many federal and state courts have adopted, likewise warn the jury to take care in appraising identification evidence.”); see, e.g., Slim, 127 Ill. 2d at 307-08 (analyzing the five Biggers factors in context of challenge to sufficiency of the evidence); People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 567 (2007) (analyzing Biggers factors to determine whether identification evidence was closely balanced under plain-error doctrine). ¶ 70 When a trial court determines that identification testimony was elicited by suggestive and unne

2026See Perry, 565 U.S. at 246 (“Eyewitness-specific jury instructions, which many federal and state courts have adopted, likewise warn the jury to take care in appraising identification evidence.”); see, e.g., Slim, 127 Ill. 2d at 307-08 (analyzing the five Biggers factors in context of challenge to sufficiency of the evidence); People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 567 (2007) (analyzing Biggers factors to determine whether identification evidence was closely balanced under plain-error doctrine). ¶ 70 When a trial court determines that identification testimony was elicited by suggestive and unne

2026See Perry, 565 U.S. at 246 (“Eyewitness-specific jury instructions, which many federal and state courts have adopted, likewise warn the jury to take care in appraising identification evidence.”); see, e.g., Slim, 127 Ill. 2d at 307-08 (analyzing the five Biggers factors in context of challenge to sufficiency of the evidence); People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 567 (2007) (analyzing Biggers factors to determine whether identification evidence was closely balanced under plain-error doctrine). ¶ 70 When a trial court determines that identification testimony was elicited by suggestive and unne

2026See Perry, 565 U.S. at 246 (“Eyewitness-specific jury instructions, which many federal and state courts have adopted, likewise warn the jury to take care in appraising identification evidence.”); see, e.g., Slim, 127 Ill. 2d at 307-08 (analyzing the five Biggers factors in context of challenge to sufficiency of the evidence); People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 567 (2007) (analyzing Biggers factors to determine whether identification evidence was closely balanced under plain-error doctrine). ¶ 70 When a trial court determines that identification testimony was elicited by suggestive and unne

2022Dear then immediately identified defendant from a photo array and also in a physical lineup. 3 ¶ 41 Under the fourth and fifth Biggers factors, Dear thus displayed a high degree of certainty in identifying defendant only several hours after the shooting. 4 See Macklin, 2019 IL App (1st) 161165, ¶ 32 (noting, according to research, the expression of certainty at the time of an initial identification is a relevant indicator of accuracy); People v. Green, 2017 IL App (1st) 152513, ¶ 113 (reviewing courts have found identifications reliable where nearly three months or more elapsed between the cri

2021People v. Joiner, 2018 IL App (1st) 150343, ¶ 47 (citing Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ); People v. Macklin, 2019 IL App (1st) 161165, ¶ 22 (“These are often referred to as the Biggers factors.”).

2017On some of the Biggers factors, Fields also cites People v. Allen, 376 Ill.

2017On some of the Biggers factors, Fields also cites People v. Allen, 376 Ill.

2026See People v. Slim, 127 Ill. 2d 302, 307 (1989) (adopting the Biggers factors); see also People v. Thompson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171265, ¶ 42 ; Joiner, 2018 IL App (1st) 150343, ¶ 47 . ¶ 57 In addition, in assessing the reliability of the identification testimony, we further consider “whether the witness was acquainted with the suspect before the crime.” People v. Simmons, 2016 IL App (1st) 13100 , ¶ 89.

2026See People v. Slim, 127 Ill. 2d 302, 307 (1989) (adopting the Biggers factors); see also People v. Thompson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171265, ¶ 42 ; Joiner, 2018 IL App (1st) 150343, ¶ 47 . ¶ 57 In addition, in assessing the reliability of the identification testimony, we further consider “whether the witness was acquainted with the suspect before the crime.” People v. Simmons, 2016 IL App (1st) 13100 , ¶ 89.

2026See People v. Simmons, 2016 IL App (1st) 131300, ¶ 89 (in addition to the Biggers factors, “[o]ur courts also consider whether the witness was acquainted with the suspect before the crime”); People v. Thompson, 2016 IL App (1st) 133648, ¶ 35 (“the familiarity of two eyewitnesses with [the defendant] personally, support the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient”). ¶ 81 At trial, Thomas and Mixon each tried to recant their prior identifications of defendant.

2026See People v. Simmons, 2016 IL App (1st) 131300, ¶ 89 (in addition to the Biggers factors, “[o]ur courts also consider whether the witness was acquainted with the suspect before the crime”); People v. Thompson, 2016 IL App (1st) 133648, ¶ 35 (“the familiarity of two eyewitnesses with [the defendant] personally, support the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient”). ¶ 81 At trial, Thomas and Mixon each tried to recant their prior identifications of defendant.

2026Id. at 133 . - 17 - ¶ 74 On the sufficiency issue, the defendant argued the identifications were not credible because the police used suggestive procedures to elicit the identifications, and he cited the Biggers factors to assert the identifications did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2026Id. at 133 . - 17 - ¶ 74 On the sufficiency issue, the defendant argued the identifications were not credible because the police used suggestive procedures to elicit the identifications, and he cited the Biggers factors to assert the identifications did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2026See People v. Slim, 127 Ill. 2d 302, 307 (1989) (adopting the Biggers factors); see also People v. Thompson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171265, ¶ 42 ; Joiner, 2018 IL App (1st) 150343, ¶ 47 . ¶ 57 In addition, in assessing the reliability of the identification testimony, we further consider “whether the witness was acquainted with the suspect before the crime.” People v. Simmons, 2016 IL App (1st) 13100 , ¶ 89.

2026See People v. Slim, 127 Ill. 2d 302, 307 (1989) (adopting the Biggers factors); see also People v. Thompson, 2020 IL App (1st) 171265, ¶ 42 ; Joiner, 2018 IL App (1st) 150343, ¶ 47 . ¶ 57 In addition, in assessing the reliability of the identification testimony, we further consider “whether the witness was acquainted with the suspect before the crime.” People v. Simmons, 2016 IL App (1st) 13100 , ¶ 89.

2022See People v. Wehrwein, 190 Ill.

2022See People v. Wehrwein, 190 Ill.

2024People v. Guerrero, 2020 IL App (1st) 172156 ¶ 32 (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)). ¶ 52 Gardner maintains that under the Biggers factors, the identifications could not support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

2024People v. Guerrero, 2020 IL App (1st) 172156 ¶ 32 (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)). ¶ 52 Gardner maintains that under the Biggers factors, the identifications could not support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

2023See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 . ¶ 38 Defendant also argues that the identifications of Daily and Chambers are unreliable because they were only shown a single photo of defendant during the investigation.

2023See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 . ¶ 38 Defendant also argues that the identifications of Daily and Chambers are unreliable because they were only shown a single photo of defendant during the investigation.

2022Dear then immediately identified defendant from a photo array and also in a physical lineup. 3 ¶ 41 Under the fourth and fifth Biggers factors, Dear thus displayed a high degree of certainty in identifying defendant only several hours after the shooting. 4 See Macklin, 2019 IL App (1st) 161165, ¶ 32 (noting, according to research, the expression of certainty at the time of an initial identification is a relevant indicator of accuracy); People v. Green, 2017 IL App (1st) 152513, ¶ 113 (reviewing courts have found identifications reliable where nearly three months or more elapsed between the cri

2021See, e.g., Macklin, 2019 IL App (1st) 161165, ¶ 30 (upholding identifications where “lineups were promptly conducted 10 days after the robbery); People v. Green, 2017 IL App (1st) 152513, ¶ 113 (upholding identification after three-month interval and noting “reviewing courts have found identifications reliable where nearly three months or more elapsed between the crime and the witness’s identification”); People v. Malone, 2012 IL App (1st) 110517, ¶ 36 (upholding identification notwithstanding one year and four month interval). ¶ 69 In sum, the Biggers factors support the trial court’s decisio

2016People v. Jackson, 348 Ill.

2016People v. Jackson, 348 Ill.

2024See People v. Blankenship, 2019 IL App (1st) 171494, ¶ 28 (“A positive identification need not be based upon perfect conditions for observation, nor does the observation have to be of a prolonged nature.”).

2024See People v. Blankenship, 2019 IL App (1st) 171494, ¶ 28 (“A positive identification need not be based upon perfect conditions for observation, nor does the observation have to be of a prolonged nature.”).

2018Starks, 2014 IL App (1st) 121169, ¶ 48 (citing Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ). ¶ 26 In considering the Biggers factors in relation to McAdory’s identification, we conclude that they weigh in the State’s favor.

2018Starks, 2014 IL App (1st) 121169, ¶ 48 (citing Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ). ¶ 26 In considering the Biggers factors in relation to McAdory’s identification, we conclude that they weigh in the State’s favor.

2024Indeed, our 9 No. 1-22-0230 supreme court has found that as much as a two-year lapse between the crime and the identification did “not destroy the witness’s credibility.” People v. Rodgers, 53 Ill. 2d 207, 214 (1972). ¶ 48 Viewing the Biggers factors as a whole, and not considering any one factor in isolation, we find the identification evidence sufficient.

2024Indeed, our 9 No. 1-22-0230 supreme court has found that as much as a two-year lapse between the crime and the identification did “not destroy the witness’s credibility.” People v. Rodgers, 53 Ill. 2d 207, 214 (1972). ¶ 48 Viewing the Biggers factors as a whole, and not considering any one factor in isolation, we find the identification evidence sufficient.

2026See People v. Simmons, 2016 IL App (1st) 131300, ¶ 89 (in addition to the Biggers factors, “[o]ur courts also consider whether the witness was acquainted with the suspect before the crime”); People v. Thompson, 2016 IL App (1st) 133648, ¶ 35 (“the familiarity of two eyewitnesses with [the defendant] personally, support the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient”). ¶ 81 At trial, Thomas and Mixon each tried to recant their prior identifications of defendant.

2026See People v. Simmons, 2016 IL App (1st) 131300, ¶ 89 (in addition to the Biggers factors, “[o]ur courts also consider whether the witness was acquainted with the suspect before the crime”); People v. Thompson, 2016 IL App (1st) 133648, ¶ 35 (“the familiarity of two eyewitnesses with [the defendant] personally, support the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient”). ¶ 81 At trial, Thomas and Mixon each tried to recant their prior identifications of defendant.

2013Illinois courts have previously found that “a trial court may omit one of the Biggers factors *** based on the ‘evidence,’ and the ‘evidence’ may include the kind of social science evidence proposed in Allen. [Citation.] For example, if the defendant in the case at bar had introduced into evidence the testimony of an expert in eyewitness identification research, the trial court may have [then] chosen, based on the evidence presented in the case, to omit one of the listed factors.” People v. Rodriguez, 387 Ill.

2013Illinois courts have previously found that “a trial court may omit one of the Biggers factors *** based on the ‘evidence,’ and the ‘evidence’ may include the kind of social science evidence proposed in Allen. [Citation.] For example, if the defendant in the case at bar had introduced into evidence the testimony of an expert in eyewitness identification research, the trial court may have [then] chosen, based on the evidence presented in the case, to omit one of the listed factors.” People v. Rodriguez, 387 Ill.

2026We do so because “ ‘whether the witness was acquainted with the suspect before the crime’ is not only relevant to identification reliability; it ‘is particularly important because it renders the other factors less relevant.’ ” Johnson, 2026 IL 131337, ¶ 87 (quoting People v. Brooks, 187 Ill. 2d 91, 130 (1999)).

2026We do so because “ ‘whether the witness was acquainted with the suspect before the crime’ is not only relevant to identification reliability; it ‘is particularly important because it renders the other factors less relevant.’ ” Johnson, 2026 IL 131337, ¶ 87 (quoting People v. Brooks, 187 Ill. 2d 91, 130 (1999)).

2023Courts consider this to be the most important of the Biggers factors (People v. A.A., 2023 IL App (1st) 221538, ¶ 18 ), and it supports the reliability of the 8 No. 1-23-0045 identification in this case. ¶ 23 As to the second factor, the witness’s degree of attention, D.F. argues that up until he understood he was being robbed, Mr. Quinoinonez had no reason to pay close attention to his passenger.

2023Courts consider this to be the most important of the Biggers factors (People v. A.A., 2023 IL App (1st) 221538, ¶ 18 ), and it supports the reliability of the 8 No. 1-23-0045 identification in this case. ¶ 23 As to the second factor, the witness’s degree of attention, D.F. argues that up until he understood he was being robbed, Mr. Quinoinonez had no reason to pay close attention to his passenger.

2024See, e.g., People v. Woodson, 2023 IL App (1st) 191353, ¶ 70-71 .

2024See, e.g., People v. Woodson, 2023 IL App (1st) 191353, ¶ 70-71 .

2024First, Washington was “ ‘close enough to the accused for a sufficient period of time under conditions adequate for observation.’ ” People v. Tomei, 2013 IL App (1st) 112632, ¶ 40 (quoting People v. Carlton, 78 Ill.

2024First, Washington was “ ‘close enough to the accused for a sufficient period of time under conditions adequate for observation.’ ” People v. Tomei, 2013 IL App (1st) 112632, ¶ 40 (quoting People v. Carlton, 78 Ill.

2023See In re J.J., 2016 IL App (1st) 160379, ¶ 22 (noting that the “Biggers factors” are used by Illinois courts for analyzing an identification’s reliability).

2020People v. McTush, 81 Ill. 2d 513, 521 (1980); In re J.J., 2016 IL App (1st) 160379 , - 10 - ¶¶ 23, 38 (lack of prior acquaintance makes victim less likely to be able to accurately identify perpetrator). ¶ 60 Luellen argues that the Biggers factors compel the conclusion that Sulieman’s identification was so vague and doubtful as to constitute reasonable doubt of Luellen’s guilt.

2021People v. Daniel, 2014 IL App (1st) 121171 , ¶ 21.

2021People v. Daniel, 2014 IL App (1st) 121171 , ¶ 21.

2020See Slim, 127 Ill. 3d at 311 (affirming eyewitness identification where, though the only eyewitness, actual victim of the robbery at issue was that witness, the witness was standing face-to-face only one or two feet away at the time of the robbery and continued to view the robber’s face as he backed away 10 to 15 feet, and the witness had an unimpeded opportunity to view the robber under well-illuminated conditions); see also People v. Macklin, 2019 IL App (1st) 161165, ¶¶ 28-30 (affirming eyewitness identification that lasted seconds but where there were two eyewitnesses who identified the de

2020See Slim, 127 Ill. 3d at 311 (affirming eyewitness identification where, though the only eyewitness, actual victim of the robbery at issue was that witness, the witness was standing face-to-face only one or two feet away at the time of the robbery and continued to view the robber’s face as he backed away 10 to 15 feet, and the witness had an unimpeded opportunity to view the robber under well-illuminated conditions); see also People v. Macklin, 2019 IL App (1st) 161165, ¶¶ 28-30 (affirming eyewitness identification that lasted seconds but where there were two eyewitnesses who identified the de