9 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Neil v. Biggersgreen2 sentences2020Consider the five Biggers factors set out by the Supreme Court of the United States, as follows: [T]he factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include [1] the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, [2] the witness’ degree of attention, [3] the accuracy of the witness’ 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. 409 U.S. at 199-200 , 93 S. Ct. at 382 (bracketed numerals added). 2020Consider the five Biggers factors set out by the Supreme Court of the United States, as follows: [T]he factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include [1] the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, [2] the witness’ degree of attention, [3] the accuracy of the witness’ 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. 409 U.S. at 199-200 , 93 S. Ct. at 382 (bracketed numerals added). | 2 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Parkergreen2 sentences2017"The Biggers factors are: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the defendant; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of any prior descriptions; (4) the level of the witness’s certainty when confronting the defendant; and (5) the time between the crime and the confrontation of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Parker, 409 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Ky. 2013) (citing Savage v. Commonwealth, 920 S.W.2d 512, 513-14 (Ky. 1995)). 5 . 2017"The Biggers factors are: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the defendant; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of any prior descriptions; (4) the level of the witness’s certainty when confronting the defendant; and (5) the time between the crime and the confrontation of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Parker, 409 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Ky. 2013) (citing Savage v. Commonwealth, 920 S.W.2d 512, 513-14 (Ky. 1995)). 5 . | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2017In Wilson v. Commonwealth, 695 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Ky. 1985), this Court summarized the requirements of the Biggers test. 2017In Wilson v. Commonwealth, 695 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Ky. 1985), this Court summarized the requirements of the Biggers test. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Russell E. Hillgreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2014) (applying the two-part test, but ruling that the particular in-court proceedings were not unnecessarily suggestive), United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir. 1992) (“All of the concerns that underlie the Biggers analysis, ... are no less applicable when the identification takes place for the first time at trial.”); but cf. United States v. Domina, 784 F.2d 1361, 1368 (9th Cir. 1986) (Acknowledging that in-court identifications are inherently suggestive, but asserting that different considerations apply when the initial identifica 2017See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2014) (applying the two-part test, but ruling that the particular in-court proceedings were not unnecessarily suggestive), United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir. 1992) (“All of the concerns that underlie the Biggers analysis, ... are no less applicable when the identification takes place for the first time at trial.”); but cf. United States v. Domina, 784 F.2d 1361, 1368 (9th Cir. 1986) (Acknowledging that in-court identifications are inherently suggestive, but asserting that different considerations apply when the initial identifica | 2 | 2 |
Keith Lee v. Brian Fostergreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2014) (applying the two-part test, but ruling that the particular in-court proceedings were not unnecessarily suggestive), United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir. 1992) (“All of the concerns that underlie the Biggers analysis, ... are no less applicable when the identification takes place for the first time at trial.”); but cf. United States v. Domina, 784 F.2d 1361, 1368 (9th Cir. 1986) (Acknowledging that in-court identifications are inherently suggestive, but asserting that different considerations apply when the initial identifica 2017See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2014) (applying the two-part test, but ruling that the particular in-court proceedings were not unnecessarily suggestive), United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir. 1992) (“All of the concerns that underlie the Biggers analysis, ... are no less applicable when the identification takes place for the first time at trial.”); but cf. United States v. Domina, 784 F.2d 1361, 1368 (9th Cir. 1986) (Acknowledging that in-court identifications are inherently suggestive, but asserting that different considerations apply when the initial identifica | 2 | 2 |
Savage v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2017"The Biggers factors are: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the defendant; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of any prior descriptions; (4) the level of the witness’s certainty when confronting the defendant; and (5) the time between the crime and the confrontation of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Parker, 409 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Ky. 2013) (citing Savage v. Commonwealth, 920 S.W.2d 512, 513-14 (Ky. 1995)). 5 . 2017"The Biggers factors are: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the defendant; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of any prior descriptions; (4) the level of the witness’s certainty when confronting the defendant; and (5) the time between the crime and the confrontation of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Parker, 409 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Ky. 2013) (citing Savage v. Commonwealth, 920 S.W.2d 512, 513-14 (Ky. 1995)). 5 . | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Craytongreen2 sentences2017Fairley also cites this Court to Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 , 21 N.E.3d 157, 169 (2014), in which Massachusetts adopted a new rule mandating that ‘‘[wjhere an eyewitness has not participated before trial in an identification procedure, we shall treat the in-court identification as an in-court showup, and shall admit it in evidence only where there is ‘good reason’ for its admission.” 6 . 2017Fairley also cites this Court to Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 , 21 N.E.3d 157, 169 (2014), in which Massachusetts adopted a new rule mandating that ‘‘[wjhere an eyewitness has not participated before trial in an identification procedure, we shall treat the in-court identification as an in-court showup, and shall admit it in evidence only where there is ‘good reason’ for its admission.” 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence1995See Jones v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 556 S.W.2d 918, 921 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Gary Stephen Dominagreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2014) (applying the two-part test, but ruling that the particular in-court proceedings were not unnecessarily suggestive), United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir. 1992) (“All of the concerns that underlie the Biggers analysis, ... are no less applicable when the identification takes place for the first time at trial.”); but cf. United States v. Domina, 784 F.2d 1361, 1368 (9th Cir. 1986) (Acknowledging that in-court identifications are inherently suggestive, but asserting that different considerations apply when the initial identifica 2017See, e.g., Lee v. Foster, 750 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2014) (applying the two-part test, but ruling that the particular in-court proceedings were not unnecessarily suggestive), United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir. 1992) (“All of the concerns that underlie the Biggers analysis, ... are no less applicable when the identification takes place for the first time at trial.”); but cf. United States v. Domina, 784 F.2d 1361, 1368 (9th Cir. 1986) (Acknowledging that in-court identifications are inherently suggestive, but asserting that different considerations apply when the initial identifica | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
August Kennaugh v. David H. Miller, Superintendent of Eastern Correctional Facility
green
2 sentences2017In support of this argument, Fairley relies on Kennaugh v. 4 "The Biggers factors are: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the defendant; (2) the witness's degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of any prior descriptions; (4) the level of the witness's certainty when confronting the qefendant; arid (5) the time between the crime and the confrontation of the defendant." Commonwealth v. Parker, 409 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Ky. 2013) (citing Savage v. Commonwealth, 920.S.W.2d 512, 513-14 (Ky. 1995)). 8 Miller, 289 F.3d 36 (2nd Cir. 2002). 2017In support of this argument, Fairley relies on Kennaugh v. 4 "The Biggers factors are: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the defendant; (2) the witness's degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of any prior descriptions; (4) the level of the witness's certainty when confronting the qefendant; arid (5) the time between the crime and the confrontation of the defendant." Commonwealth v. Parker, 409 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Ky. 2013) (citing Savage v. Commonwealth, 920.S.W.2d 512, 513-14 (Ky. 1995)). 8 Miller, 289 F.3d 36 (2nd Cir. 2002). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
King v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2015Id.; King, 142 S.W.3d at 649 ; Savage v. Commonwealth, 920 S.W.2d 512 (Ky.1995). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.