reliability analysis in District of Columbia

2025Morales, 248 A.3d at 177 n.15 (citing research concluding that those factors are “the only two of the five” that are “clearly related to accuracy” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. Hunt, 69 P.3d 571, 576-77 (Kan. 2003) (adopting “refin[ed]” Biggers factors that retain focus on the witness’s opportunity to view and the “[s]pontaneity” of the identification).

2025Morales, 248 A.3d at 177 n.15 (citing research concluding that those factors are “the only two of the five” that are “clearly related to accuracy” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. Hunt, 69 P.3d 571, 576-77 (Kan. 2003) (adopting “refin[ed]” Biggers factors that retain focus on the witness’s opportunity to view and the “[s]pontaneity” of the identification).

2001See Long v. United States, 687 A.2d 1331, 1337 (D.C.1996) (quoting Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and listing factors to be considered in a reliability analysis); cf. Beatty v. United States, 544 A.2d 699, 701 (D.C.1988). [9] The trial court characterized its ruling in the following manner: The case authorities are quite clear that escape from confinement ... is sufficient to create consciousness of guilt.... * * * Nor do we have or will we have particularly prejudicial evidence coming out of this incident itself. * * * Given these conditions, i

2001See Long v. United States, 687 A.2d 1331, 1337 (D.C.1996) (quoting Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and listing factors to be considered in a reliability analysis); cf. Beatty v. United States, 544 A.2d 699, 701 (D.C.1988). [9] The trial court characterized its ruling in the following manner: The case authorities are quite clear that escape from confinement ... is sufficient to create consciousness of guilt.... * * * Nor do we have or will we have particularly prejudicial evidence coming out of this incident itself. * * * Given these conditions, i

2021See, e.g., Holt v. United States, 675 A.2d 474 , 482–83 (D.C. 1996) (citing “uniquely powerful indicia of reliability” where officer observed suspect from a few car lengths away for approximately one minute while chasing him and made identification a little over half an hour later). 15 The longer the gap in time between 15 The first and fifth Biggers factors typically drive the reliability analysis, and have been described as the “only two of the five” factors that scientific research supports as “clearly related to accuracy in the way that the Court had assumed,” while the remaining factors “

2021See, e.g., Hopkins v. State, 721 A.2d 231, 241 (Md. 1998) (noting “previous identification” as providing assurance that in-court identification was “sufficiently reliable,” despite any intervening “suggestiv[ity]”). 25 same witness made a pre-suggestivity identification.

2021After all, Patterson’s bottom-line conclusion was that the mugshot displays in that case “could not have created a ‘very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification,’” 384 A.2d at 666 (quoting Simmons, 390 U.S. at 384 ), which is precisely what the reliability inquiry probes. 11 It seems to have wedged a threshold 10 As we explained in Patterson: “[T]he first identifications occurred when [the witness] sighted the suspects (who had robbed him merely an hour and a half before) and pointed them out to the officers.

2021See Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 116 (concluding, in assessing reliability, “we cannot say that under all the circumstances of this case there is ‘a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification’”) (quoting Simmons, 390 U.S. at 384 ). 12 Other courts treat the fact of a prior unsuggested identification as sounding in the reliability analysis, which is where we think it fits more comfortably.

2021Wade, 388 U.S. at 241 (independent source factors include “the prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act, the existence of any discrepancy between any pre-lineup description and the defendant’s actual description . . . and the lapse of time between the alleged act and the lineup identification”).

2017Even in the reliability context, however, it is “impossible to fix any precise time limit measured by a specific number of minutes from the commission of the crime within which all on-the-scene confrontations must take place,” Jones v. United States, 277 A.2d 95, 98 (D.C. 1971), and we have held that show-up identifications made an hour or more after the commission of a crime were not only permissible in the circumstances, but sufficiently prompt to add to the reliability of the identifications.

2017For example, even where there was irrefutable evidence of the defendant’s guilt, if an identification were made by a witness who, it transpired, was not even present at the event, we could hardly term the identification reliable.” Abdur Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122, 140 (2d Cir. 2001).

2015Regarding the use of transcripts in the grand jury generally, we note that this court has “sanctioned the prosecutor’s use of a transcript of a witness’ prior sworn grand jury testimony in a later,. separate grand jury proceeding.” Miles v. United States, 483 A.2d 649, 654 (D.C.1984); see also United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344-45 , 94 S.Ct. 613 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) (“The grand jury’s sources of information are wídély drawn, and the validity of an indictment is not affected by the character of the evidence considered.”) As to the prosecutor’s summaries of the testimony contained i

2015Regarding the use of transcripts in the grand jury generally, we note that this court has “sanctioned the prosecutor’s use of a transcript of a witness’ prior sworn grand jury testimony in a later,. separate grand jury proceeding.” Miles v. United States, 483 A.2d 649, 654 (D.C.1984); see also United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344-45 , 94 S.Ct. 613 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) (“The grand jury’s sources of information are wídély drawn, and the validity of an indictment is not affected by the character of the evidence considered.”) As to the prosecutor’s summaries of the testimony contained i

2015Regarding the use of transcripts in the grand jury generally, we note that this court has “sanctioned the prosecutor’s use of a transcript of a witness’ prior sworn grand jury testimony in a later,. separate grand jury proceeding.” Miles v. United States, 483 A.2d 649, 654 (D.C.1984); see also United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344-45 , 94 S.Ct. 613 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) (“The grand jury’s sources of information are wídély drawn, and the validity of an indictment is not affected by the character of the evidence considered.”) As to the prosecutor’s summaries of the testimony contained i

2015Regarding the use of transcripts in the grand jury generally, we note that this court has “sanctioned the prosecutor’s use of a transcript of a witness’ prior sworn grand jury testimony in a later,. separate grand jury proceeding.” Miles v. United States, 483 A.2d 649, 654 (D.C.1984); see also United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 344-45 , 94 S.Ct. 613 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) (“The grand jury’s sources of information are wídély drawn, and the validity of an indictment is not affected by the character of the evidence considered.”) As to the prosecutor’s summaries of the testimony contained i

2015Appellants’ argument about the way in which testimony was presented to the grand jury which issued the superseding indictment amounts to the type of reliability challenge which, on these facts, also does not establish prejudice under the Bank of Nova Scotia standard, See id. at 262-63 , 108 S.Ct. 2369 (determining that dismissal of indictment not warranted on the basis of a reliability challenge to the accuracy of IRS agents’ tandem reading of transcripts before the grand jury given no showing of prejudice).

2015Appellants’ argument about the way in which testimony was presented to the grand jury which issued the superseding indictment amounts to the type of reliability challenge which, on these facts, also does not establish prejudice under the Bank of Nova Scotia standard, See id. at 262-63 , 108 S.Ct. 2369 (determining that dismissal of indictment not warranted on the basis of a reliability challenge to the accuracy of IRS agents’ tandem reading of transcripts before the grand jury given no showing of prejudice).

2011See, e.g., Porter v. United States, 7 A.3d 1021, 1023 (D.C.2010) (crediting the fact that “[o]ver a period of ten years, the informant had never given ... false information”); Boxley, 985 A.2d at 1112 (informant’s tips had “resulted] in eleven arrests pertaining to drugs”); Barrie, 887 A.2d at 30-31 (officer testified that he had “worked with the informant on twenty-five cases and had found him to be reliable in all”); Goldston, 562 A.2d at 97 (the informant had, “over the previous eighteen months, ... provided [the officer] with accurate and reliable information on eleven occasions ... [and]

2011See, e.g., Porter v. United States, 7 A.3d 1021, 1023 (D.C.2010) (crediting the fact that “[o]ver a period of ten years, the informant had never given ... false information”); Boxley, 985 A.2d at 1112 (informant’s tips had “resulted] in eleven arrests pertaining to drugs”); Barrie, 887 A.2d at 30-31 (officer testified that he had “worked with the informant on twenty-five cases and had found him to be reliable in all”); Goldston, 562 A.2d at 97 (the informant had, “over the previous eighteen months, ... provided [the officer] with accurate and reliable information on eleven occasions ... [and]

2011See, e.g., Porter v. United States, 7 A.3d 1021, 1023 (D.C.2010) (crediting the fact that “[o]ver a period of ten years, the informant had never given ... false information”); Boxley, 985 A.2d at 1112 (informant’s tips had “resulted] in eleven arrests pertaining to drugs”); Barrie, 887 A.2d at 30-31 (officer testified that he had “worked with the informant on twenty-five cases and had found him to be reliable in all”); Goldston, 562 A.2d at 97 (the informant had, “over the previous eighteen months, ... provided [the officer] with accurate and reliable information on eleven occasions ... [and]

2011See, e.g., Porter v. United States, 7 A.3d 1021, 1023 (D.C.2010) (crediting the fact that “[o]ver a period of ten years, the informant had never given ... false information”); Boxley, 985 A.2d at 1112 (informant’s tips had “resulted] in eleven arrests pertaining to drugs”); Barrie, 887 A.2d at 30-31 (officer testified that he had “worked with the informant on twenty-five cases and had found him to be reliable in all”); Goldston, 562 A.2d at 97 (the informant had, “over the previous eighteen months, ... provided [the officer] with accurate and reliable information on eleven occasions ... [and]

2011See, e.g., Porter v. United States, 7 A.3d 1021, 1023 (D.C.2010) (crediting the fact that “[o]ver a period of ten years, the informant had never given ... false information”); Boxley, 985 A.2d at 1112 (informant’s tips had “resulted] in eleven arrests pertaining to drugs”); Barrie, 887 A.2d at 30-31 (officer testified that he had “worked with the informant on twenty-five cases and had found him to be reliable in all”); Goldston, 562 A.2d at 97 (the informant had, “over the previous eighteen months, ... provided [the officer] with accurate and reliable information on eleven occasions ... [and]

2005See Akins, supra, 679 A.2d at 1030 .

2005See Akins, supra, 679 A.2d at 1030 .

2001See Long v. United States, 687 A.2d 1331, 1337 (D.C.1996) (quoting Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and listing factors to be considered in a reliability analysis); cf. Beatty v. United States, 544 A.2d 699, 701 (D.C.1988). [9] The trial court characterized its ruling in the following manner: The case authorities are quite clear that escape from confinement ... is sufficient to create consciousness of guilt.... * * * Nor do we have or will we have particularly prejudicial evidence coming out of this incident itself. * * * Given these conditions, i

2001See Long v. United States, 687 A.2d 1331, 1337 (D.C.1996) (quoting Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and listing factors to be considered in a reliability analysis); cf. Beatty v. United States, 544 A.2d 699, 701 (D.C.1988). .

2001See Long v. United States, 687 A.2d 1331, 1337 (D.C.1996) (quoting Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and listing factors to be considered in a reliability analysis); cf. Beatty v. United States, 544 A.2d 699, 701 (D.C.1988). [9] The trial court characterized its ruling in the following manner: The case authorities are quite clear that escape from confinement ... is sufficient to create consciousness of guilt.... * * * Nor do we have or will we have particularly prejudicial evidence coming out of this incident itself. * * * Given these conditions, i

2001See Long v. United States, 687 A.2d 1331, 1337 (D.C.1996) (quoting Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), and listing factors to be considered in a reliability analysis); cf. Beatty v. United States, 544 A.2d 699, 701 (D.C.1988). .