11 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ledbettergreen2 sentences2018A dozen years ago, in State v. Ledbetter , supra, 275 Conn. at 560 -69 , 881 A.2d 290 , we **117 applied the Geisler factors and rejected the claim that *135 our state constitution requires that we abandon the Biggers factors as the appropriate factors to consider in determining whether the product of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure is nevertheless reliable and, therefore, admissible. 2018A dozen years ago, in State v. Ledbetter , supra, 275 Conn. at 560 -69 , 881 A.2d 290 , we **117 applied the Geisler factors and rejected the claim that *135 our state constitution requires that we abandon the Biggers factors as the appropriate factors to consider in determining whether the product of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure is nevertheless reliable and, therefore, admissible. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Dubosered2 sentences2018See Commonwealth v. Johnson , 420 Mass. 458 , 472, 650 N.E.2d 1257 (1995) ("[o]nly a rule of per se exclusion [of identifications resulting from unnecessarily suggestive procedures] can ensure the continued protection against the danger of mistaken identification and wrongful convictions"); id., at 462-63 , 650 N.E.2d 1257 ( Biggers framework is not consistent with due process requirements of Massachusetts constitution); People v. Adams , 53 N.Y.2d 241 , 250, 423 N.E.2d 379 , 440 N.Y.S.2d 902 (1981) (adopting "rule excluding improper showups and evidence derived therefrom," which was required 2018See Commonwealth v. Johnson , 420 Mass. 458 , 472, 650 N.E.2d 1257 (1995) ("[o]nly a rule of per se exclusion [of identifications resulting from unnecessarily suggestive procedures] can ensure the continued protection against the danger of mistaken identification and wrongful convictions"); id., at 462-63 , 650 N.E.2d 1257 ( Biggers framework is not consistent with due process requirements of Massachusetts constitution); People v. Adams , 53 N.Y.2d 241 , 250, 423 N.E.2d 379 , 440 N.Y.S.2d 902 (1981) (adopting "rule excluding improper showups and evidence derived therefrom," which was required | 2 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2018See Commonwealth v. Johnson , 420 Mass. 458 , 472, 650 N.E.2d 1257 (1995) ("[o]nly a rule of per se exclusion [of identifications resulting from unnecessarily suggestive procedures] can ensure the continued protection against the danger of mistaken identification and wrongful convictions"); id., at 462-63 , 650 N.E.2d 1257 ( Biggers framework is not consistent with due process requirements of Massachusetts constitution); People v. Adams , 53 N.Y.2d 241 , 250, 423 N.E.2d 379 , 440 N.Y.S.2d 902 (1981) (adopting "rule excluding improper showups and evidence derived therefrom," which was required 2018See Commonwealth v. Johnson , 420 Mass. 458 , 472, 650 N.E.2d 1257 (1995) ("[o]nly a rule of per se exclusion [of identifications resulting from unnecessarily suggestive procedures] can ensure the continued protection against the danger of mistaken identification and wrongful convictions"); id., at 462-63 , 650 N.E.2d 1257 ( Biggers framework is not consistent with due process requirements of Massachusetts constitution); People v. Adams , 53 N.Y.2d 241 , 250, 423 N.E.2d 379 , 440 N.Y.S.2d 902 (1981) (adopting "rule excluding improper showups and evidence derived therefrom," which was required | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ramirezgreen2 sentences2018According to the defendant, it is now apparent that the five factors that comprise the Biggers test are not fully adequate and that, for state constitutional purposes, we should adopt either the reliability standard that the Supreme Court of Utah applies for purposes of that state's constitution; see State v. Ramirez , 817 P.2d 774 , 781 (Utah 1991) ; or the framework advocated by the amici curiae, the Connecticut Innocence Project and the Innocence Project, *134 which incorporates aspects of the standards applied by courts in Alaska, New Jersey and Oregon. 2018According to the defendant, it is now apparent that the five factors that comprise the Biggers test are not fully adequate and that, for state constitutional purposes, we should adopt either the reliability standard that the Supreme Court of Utah applies for purposes of that state's constitution; see State v. Ramirez , 817 P.2d 774 , 781 (Utah 1991) ; or the framework advocated by the amici curiae, the Connecticut Innocence Project and the Innocence Project, *134 which incorporates aspects of the standards applied by courts in Alaska, New Jersey and Oregon. | 2 | 2 |
Keith Lee v. Brian Fostergreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 , 690-91 (7th Cir.2014) (utilizing two-pronged Biggers test to determine admissibility of in-court identification when witness failed to identify defendant in photographic array just eleven days before trial); United States v. Greene, supra, 704 F.3d at 304-10 (identification witness did not identify defendant in or out of court but provided " 'resemblance' " testimony by describing similarities between defendant and perpetrator, and court treated this evidence as in-court identification and applied Biggers test to determine admissibility); United States 2016See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 , 690–91 (7th Cir. 2014) (utilizing two-pronged Biggers test to determine admissibility of in-court identification when witness failed to identify defen- dant in photographic array just eleven days before trial); United States v. Greene, supra, 704 F.3d 304–10 (identification witness did not identify defendant in or out of court but provided ‘‘ ‘resemblance’ ’’ testimony by describing similarities between defendant and perpetrator, and court treated this evidence as in-court identification and applied Biggers test to determine admissibility); United State | 2 | 2 |
Neil v. Biggersgreen2 sentences2018Although the specific factors that Dysart addressed are not expressly included in the Biggers framework, that framework does direct the court to consider "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime," "the witness' degree of attention," and "the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation ...." Neil v. Biggers , supra, 409 U.S. at 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 . 2018Although the specific factors that Dysart addressed are not expressly included in the Biggers framework, that framework does direct the court to consider "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime," "the witness' degree of attention," and "the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation ...." Neil v. Biggers , supra, 409 U.S. at 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 . | 1 | 5 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2018See Young v. State, 374 P.3d 395 , 427 (Alaska 2016) ; State v. Henderson , 208 N.J. 208 , 288-89, 27 A.3d 872 (2011) ; State v. Lawson , 352 Or. 724 , 761-63, 291 P.3d 673 (2012). 17 We conclude, as a matter of state constitutional law, that it is appropriate to modify the Biggers framework to conform to recent developments in social science and the law. 2018See Young v. State, 374 P.3d 395 , 427 (Alaska 2016) ; State v. Henderson , 208 N.J. 208 , 288-89, 27 A.3d 872 (2011) ; State v. Lawson , 352 Or. 724 , 761-63, 291 P.3d 673 (2012). 17 We conclude, as a matter of state constitutional law, that it is appropriate to modify the Biggers framework to conform to recent developments in social science and the law. | 1 | 3 |
Perry v. New Hampshiregreen2 sentences2016Rev. 701 , 713 n.75 (2014) (‘‘[s]tate courts have been the incubators for what later becomes incorporated into the [f]ederal [c]onstitution’’). 7 Hereinafter, we refer to these factors as the Biggers factors. 8 We address the state’s claim that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Perry v. New Hampshire, supra, 132 S. Ct. 716 , addressed this question later in this opinion. 9 See Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 272 n.3, 87 S. Ct. 1951 , 18 L. 2016Rev. 701 , 713 n.75 (2014) (‘‘[s]tate courts have been the incubators for what later becomes incorporated into the [f]ederal [c]onstitution’’). 7 Hereinafter, we refer to these factors as the Biggers factors. 8 We address the state’s claim that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Perry v. New Hampshire, supra, 132 S. Ct. 716 , addressed this question later in this opinion. 9 See Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 272 n.3, 87 S. Ct. 1951 , 18 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Butigreen2 sentences2018See State v. Buti , 131 Idaho 793 , 799, 964 P.2d 660 (1998) (reliability factors under Idaho constitution are identical to Biggers factors); State v. Leclair , 118 N.H. 214 , 218-20, 385 A.2d 831 (1978) (noting that Biggers test "is based on federal constitutional minima and does not preclude the states from adopting a per se rule under [s]tate law," and then applying Biggers test). 2018See State v. Buti , 131 Idaho 793 , 799, 964 P.2d 660 (1998) (reliability factors under Idaho constitution are identical to Biggers factors); State v. Leclair , 118 N.H. 214 , 218-20, 385 A.2d 831 (1978) (noting that Biggers test "is based on federal constitutional minima and does not preclude the states from adopting a per se rule under [s]tate law," and then applying Biggers test). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Browngreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 , 690-91 (7th Cir.2014) (utilizing two-pronged Biggers test to determine admissibility of in-court identification when witness failed to identify defendant in photographic array just eleven days before trial); United States v. Greene, supra, 704 F.3d at 304-10 (identification witness did not identify defendant in or out of court but provided " 'resemblance' " testimony by describing similarities between defendant and perpetrator, and court treated this evidence as in-court identification and applied Biggers test to determine admissibility); United States 2016See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 , 690-91 (7th Cir.2014) (utilizing two-pronged Biggers test to determine admissibility of in-court identification when witness failed to identify defendant in photographic array just eleven days before trial); United States v. Greene, supra, 704 F.3d at 304-10 (identification witness did not identify defendant in or out of court but provided " 'resemblance' " testimony by describing similarities between defendant and perpetrator, and court treated this evidence as in-court identification and applied Biggers test to determine admissibility); United States | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Russell E. Hillgreen2 sentences2016Ed. 2d 838 (1997); United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.) (‘‘[w]e hold that the Biggers analysis applies to [first time] in-court identifications for the same reasons that the analysis applies to impermissibly suggestive [pretrial] identifications’’), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S. Ct. 438 , 121 L. 2016Ed. 2d 838 (1997); United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.) (‘‘[w]e hold that the Biggers analysis applies to [first time] in-court identifications for the same reasons that the analysis applies to impermissibly suggestive [pretrial] identifications’’), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S. Ct. 438 , 121 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Montgomerygreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., State v. Montgomery , 254 Conn. 694 , 718, 759 A.2d 995 (2000) ("[t]he state bears the burden of demonstrating that the constitutional error *147 was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" [internal quotation marks omitted] ). 2018See, e.g., State v. Montgomery , 254 Conn. 694 , 718, 759 A.2d 995 (2000) ("[t]he state bears the burden of demonstrating that the constitutional error *147 was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" [internal quotation marks omitted] ). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Huntgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Young v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Deshawn Greenegreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Robert Archibaldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. William Bush, A/K/A William Turnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Marvin Allen Rundellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Patrick Baker v. Carl Hocker, Warden, Nevada, State Prisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Byrd v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lee v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Copeland v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ramirez v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Galloway v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lewisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Shepard-Frasergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Oregon v. Hassgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Noah Beverly Johnny P. Crockett Douglas A. Turnsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Timothy W. Hinesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| United States v. Lonnie Whatleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Keys v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Halmos v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.green | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Collinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Manson v. Brathwaite
green
2 sentences2016Although both the per se exclusionary rule and the Biggers test help to keep unreliable evidence from the jury, "[t]he per se rule ... goes too far since its application automatically and peremptorily, and without consideration of alleviating factors, keeps evidence from the jury that is reliable and relevant." Id., at 112 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 . 2016Although both the per se exclusionary rule and the Biggers test help to keep unreliable evidence from the jury, "[t]he per se rule ... goes too far since its application automatically and peremptorily, and without consideration of alleviating factors, keeps evidence from the jury that is reliable and relevant." Id., at 112 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 . | 4 | 2005–2025 |
State v. LeClair
green
2 sentences2018See State v. Buti , 131 Idaho 793 , 799, 964 P.2d 660 (1998) (reliability factors under Idaho constitution are identical to Biggers factors); State v. Leclair , 118 N.H. 214 , 218-20, 385 A.2d 831 (1978) (noting that Biggers test "is based on federal constitutional minima and does not preclude the states from adopting a per se rule under [s]tate law," and then applying Biggers test). 2018See State v. Buti , 131 Idaho 793 , 799, 964 P.2d 660 (1998) (reliability factors under Idaho constitution are identical to Biggers factors); State v. Leclair , 118 N.H. 214 , 218-20, 385 A.2d 831 (1978) (noting that Biggers test "is based on federal constitutional minima and does not preclude the states from adopting a per se rule under [s]tate law," and then applying Biggers test). | 2 | 2005–2018 |
cluster 13161
green
2 sentences2016Ed. 2d 509 (2000); United States v. Rogers, 126 F.3d 655 , 657–59 (5th Cir. 1997) (reviewing, under Biggers test, admission of first time in-court identification by witness who was not originally expected by prosecution to identify defendant); United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870 , 882–83 (8th Cir. 1996) (reviewing admissibility of first time in-court identification under Biggers framework), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1141 , 117 S. Ct. 1015 , 136 L. 2016Ed. 2d 509 (2000); United States v. Rogers, 126 F.3d 655 , 657–59 (5th Cir. 1997) (reviewing, under Biggers test, admission of first time in-court identification by witness who was not originally expected by prosecution to identify defendant); United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870 , 882–83 (8th Cir. 1996) (reviewing admissibility of first time in-court identification under Biggers framework), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1141 , 117 S. Ct. 1015 , 136 L. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. John Monroe Kime, Also Known as Jack Kime, United States of America v. Randall Kirk Bell
green
2 sentences2016Ed. 2d 509 (2000); United States v. Rogers, 126 F.3d 655 , 657–59 (5th Cir. 1997) (reviewing, under Biggers test, admission of first time in-court identification by witness who was not originally expected by prosecution to identify defendant); United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870 , 882–83 (8th Cir. 1996) (reviewing admissibility of first time in-court identification under Biggers framework), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1141 , 117 S. Ct. 1015 , 136 L. 2016Ed. 2d 509 (2000); United States v. Rogers, 126 F.3d 655 , 657–59 (5th Cir. 1997) (reviewing, under Biggers test, admission of first time in-court identification by witness who was not originally expected by prosecution to identify defendant); United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870 , 882–83 (8th Cir. 1996) (reviewing admissibility of first time in-court identification under Biggers framework), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1141 , 117 S. Ct. 1015 , 136 L. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Beras v. United States
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 , 690-91 (7th Cir.2014) (utilizing two-pronged Biggers test to determine admissibility of in-court identification when witness failed to identify defendant in photographic array just eleven days before trial); United States v. Greene, supra, 704 F.3d at 304-10 (identification witness did not identify defendant in or out of court but provided " 'resemblance' " testimony by describing similarities between defendant and perpetrator, and court treated this evidence as in-court identification and applied Biggers test to determine admissibility); United States 2016Appx. 560 , 567–68 (3d Cir.) (applying Biggers factors to in-court identification in case involving witness who failed to identify defendant in photographic array conducted six months after crime but who, upon viewing defendant when entering courtroom, informed prosecutor that she could identify defendant as perpetrator and was subsequently asked to make such identification in court), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 966 , 126 S. Ct. 494 , 163 L. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Mason v. United States
neutral
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 , 690-91 (7th Cir.2014) (utilizing two-pronged Biggers test to determine admissibility of in-court identification when witness failed to identify defendant in photographic array just eleven days before trial); United States v. Greene, supra, 704 F.3d at 304-10 (identification witness did not identify defendant in or out of court but provided " 'resemblance' " testimony by describing similarities between defendant and perpetrator, and court treated this evidence as in-court identification and applied Biggers test to determine admissibility); United States 2016Appx. 560 , 567–68 (3d Cir.) (applying Biggers factors to in-court identification in case involving witness who failed to identify defendant in photographic array conducted six months after crime but who, upon viewing defendant when entering courtroom, informed prosecutor that she could identify defendant as perpetrator and was subsequently asked to make such identification in court), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 966 , 126 S. Ct. 494 , 163 L. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Mosquera-Lopez v. United States
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 , 690-91 (7th Cir.2014) (utilizing two-pronged Biggers test to determine admissibility of in-court identification when witness failed to identify defendant in photographic array just eleven days before trial); United States v. Greene, supra, 704 F.3d at 304-10 (identification witness did not identify defendant in or out of court but provided " 'resemblance' " testimony by describing similarities between defendant and perpetrator, and court treated this evidence as in-court identification and applied Biggers test to determine admissibility); United States 2016See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 , 690-91 (7th Cir.2014) (utilizing two-pronged Biggers test to determine admissibility of in-court identification when witness failed to identify defendant in photographic array just eleven days before trial); United States v. Greene, supra, 704 F.3d at 304-10 (identification witness did not identify defendant in or out of court but provided " 'resemblance' " testimony by describing similarities between defendant and perpetrator, and court treated this evidence as in-court identification and applied Biggers test to determine admissibility); United States | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Sierra-Hernandez v. United States
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 , 690-91 (7th Cir.2014) (utilizing two-pronged Biggers test to determine admissibility of in-court identification when witness failed to identify defendant in photographic array just eleven days before trial); United States v. Greene, supra, 704 F.3d at 304-10 (identification witness did not identify defendant in or out of court but provided " 'resemblance' " testimony by describing similarities between defendant and perpetrator, and court treated this evidence as in-court identification and applied Biggers test to determine admissibility); United States 2016See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 , 690-91 (7th Cir.2014) (utilizing two-pronged Biggers test to determine admissibility of in-court identification when witness failed to identify defendant in photographic array just eleven days before trial); United States v. Greene, supra, 704 F.3d at 304-10 (identification witness did not identify defendant in or out of court but provided " 'resemblance' " testimony by describing similarities between defendant and perpetrator, and court treated this evidence as in-court identification and applied Biggers test to determine admissibility); United States | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Denetclaw v. United States
green
2 sentences2016Ed. 2d 509 (2000); United States v. Rogers, 126 F.3d 655 , 657–59 (5th Cir. 1997) (reviewing, under Biggers test, admission of first time in-court identification by witness who was not originally expected by prosecution to identify defendant); United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870 , 882–83 (8th Cir. 1996) (reviewing admissibility of first time in-court identification under Biggers framework), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1141 , 117 S. Ct. 1015 , 136 L. 2016Ed. 2d 509 (2000); United States v. Rogers, 126 F.3d 655 , 657–59 (5th Cir. 1997) (reviewing, under Biggers test, admission of first time in-court identification by witness who was not originally expected by prosecution to identify defendant); United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870 , 882–83 (8th Cir. 1996) (reviewing admissibility of first time in-court identification under Biggers framework), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1141 , 117 S. Ct. 1015 , 136 L. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Ard v. United States
green
2 sentences2016Ed. 2d 509 (2000); United States v. Rogers, 126 F.3d 655 , 657–59 (5th Cir. 1997) (reviewing, under Biggers test, admission of first time in-court identification by witness who was not originally expected by prosecution to identify defendant); United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870 , 882–83 (8th Cir. 1996) (reviewing admissibility of first time in-court identification under Biggers framework), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1141 , 117 S. Ct. 1015 , 136 L. 2016Ed. 2d 509 (2000); United States v. Rogers, 126 F.3d 655 , 657–59 (5th Cir. 1997) (reviewing, under Biggers test, admission of first time in-court identification by witness who was not originally expected by prosecution to identify defendant); United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870 , 882–83 (8th Cir. 1996) (reviewing admissibility of first time in-court identification under Biggers framework), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1141 , 117 S. Ct. 1015 , 136 L. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Jones
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 , 690-91 (7th Cir.2014) (utilizing two-pronged Biggers test to determine admissibility of in-court identification when witness failed to identify defendant in photographic array just eleven days before trial); United States v. Greene, supra, 704 F.3d at 304-10 (identification witness did not identify defendant in or out of court but provided " 'resemblance' " testimony by describing similarities between defendant and perpetrator, and court treated this evidence as in-court identification and applied Biggers test to determine admissibility); United States 2016See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 , 690–91 (7th Cir. 2014) (utilizing two-pronged Biggers test to determine admissibility of in-court identification when witness failed to identify defen- dant in photographic array just eleven days before trial); United States v. Greene, supra, 704 F.3d 304–10 (identification witness did not identify defendant in or out of court but provided ‘‘ ‘resemblance’ ’’ testimony by describing similarities between defendant and perpetrator, and court treated this evidence as in-court identification and applied Biggers test to determine admissibility); United State | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Singleton v. Norris
green
2 sentences2016Ed. 2d 838 (1997); United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.) (‘‘[w]e hold that the Biggers analysis applies to [first time] in-court identifications for the same reasons that the analysis applies to impermissibly suggestive [pretrial] identifications’’), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S. Ct. 438 , 121 L. 2016Ed. 2d 838 (1997); United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.) (‘‘[w]e hold that the Biggers analysis applies to [first time] in-court identifications for the same reasons that the analysis applies to impermissibly suggestive [pretrial] identifications’’), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S. Ct. 438 , 121 L. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Price v. United States
green
2 sentences2016Ed. 2d 838 (1997); United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.) (‘‘[w]e hold that the Biggers analysis applies to [first time] in-court identifications for the same reasons that the analysis applies to impermissibly suggestive [pretrial] identifications’’), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S. Ct. 438 , 121 L. 2016Ed. 2d 838 (1997); United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.) (‘‘[w]e hold that the Biggers analysis applies to [first time] in-court identifications for the same reasons that the analysis applies to impermissibly suggestive [pretrial] identifications’’), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S. Ct. 438 , 121 L. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Geisler
green
2 sentences2022After a thorough survey of each of those factors under the framework set forth in State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672 , 684–86, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992),16 the court concluded: ‘‘Despite the fact that [the] last [Geisler] factor [contem- porary understandings of economic and sociological considerations] favors the defendant, we are unper- suaded that article first, § 8, of the constitution of Con- necticut provides greater protection than the federal constitution in this area. 2022After a thorough survey of each of those factors under the framework set forth in State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672 , 684–86, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992),16 the court concluded: ‘‘Despite the fact that [the] last [Geisler] factor [contem- porary understandings of economic and sociological considerations] favors the defendant, we are unper- suaded that article first, § 8, of the constitution of Con- necticut provides greater protection than the federal constitution in this area. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Marquez
green
2 sentences2022In State v. Marquez, supra, 291 Conn. 122 , the defen- dant challenged the reliability of eyewitness identifica- tions. 2022In State v. Marquez, supra, 291 Conn. 122 , the defen- dant challenged the reliability of eyewitness identifica- tions. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences2019In State v. Harris, supra, 330 Conn. 91 , our Supreme Court held that this provision affords greater protection than the federal due process clause with respect to the admissibility of an eyewitness identification following an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure.33 It concluded that it was ‘‘appropriate to modify the Biggers framework to conform to recent developments in social science and the law.’’ Id., 115 . 2019In State v. Harris, supra, 330 Conn. 91 , our Supreme Court held that this provision affords greater protection than the federal due process clause with respect to the admissibility of an eyewitness identification following an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure.33 It concluded that it was ‘‘appropriate to modify the Biggers framework to conform to recent developments in social science and the law.’’ Id., 115 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Ortiz
green
1 sentence2018See id. ; cf. State v. Ortiz , supra, 252 Conn. at 553 , 747 A.2d 487 (under Biggers framework, "[t]he defendant bears the burden of proving both that the identification procedures were unnecessarily suggestive and that the resulting identification was unreliable" [internal quotation marks omitted] ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Adams green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Lawson/James
green
2 sentences2018See Young v. State, 374 P.3d 395 , 427 (Alaska 2016) ; State v. Henderson , 208 N.J. 208 , 288-89, 27 A.3d 872 (2011) ; State v. Lawson , 352 Or. 724 , 761-63, 291 P.3d 673 (2012). 17 We conclude, as a matter of state constitutional law, that it is appropriate to modify the Biggers framework to conform to recent developments in social science and the law. 2018See Young v. State, 374 P.3d 395 , 427 (Alaska 2016) ; State v. Henderson , 208 N.J. 208 , 288-89, 27 A.3d 872 (2011) ; State v. Lawson , 352 Or. 724 , 761-63, 291 P.3d 673 (2012). 17 We conclude, as a matter of state constitutional law, that it is appropriate to modify the Biggers framework to conform to recent developments in social science and the law. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Young v. United States neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Earls v. United States green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Gilbert v. California green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| United States v. Archibald green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. King green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Tripati v. Arizona green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Alvarez Ramirez v. United States green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Brooks v. Kyler, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Maloney Et Ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Findlay green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Golding green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Reid green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Daley v. Frank green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Aquamarine Operators, Inc. v. Downer green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Turnbull Cone Baking Co. v. National Labor Relations Board green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.