per se exclusionary rule in Mississippi

2005In the absence of legislative regulations adequate to avoid the hazards to a fair trial which inhere in lineups as presently conducted, the desirability of deterring the constitutionally objectionable practice must prevail over the undesirability of excluding relevant evidence. *696 Id. at 272-73 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 (emphasis added). ¶ 12.

1968With reference to confrontations for identification purposes conducted in the absence of counsel after June 12, 1967, Gilbert v. California establishes "a per se exclusionary rule as to such testimony." 388 U.S. 275 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1186 (1967).

1975The Wade case was reversed because the Court stated that on the record before it, "We cannot make the determination whether the in-court identifications had an independent origin." In Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 , 92 S.Ct. 1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972), which involved a pre-indictment, out-of-court identification of a defendant without counsel, the Court declined to impose the per se exclusionary rule.

1975The Wade case was reversed because the Court stated that on the record before it, "We cannot make the determination whether the in-court identifications had an independent origin." In Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 , 92 S.Ct. 1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972), which involved a pre-indictment, out-of-court identification of a defendant without counsel, the Court declined to impose the per se exclusionary rule.

1998Cervantes-Pacheco, 826 F.2d at 316 ; Williams, 463 So.2d at 1069 .

1998Cervantes-Pacheco, 826 F.2d at 316 ; Williams, 463 So.2d at 1069 .

1982The Court ruled that the "adversary judicial criminal proceedings" had begun, requiring the exclusion of the out-of-court identification. [6] Compare exclusion of testimony of pretrial identification in this case, because Gilbert had no attorney, with Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969), infra, in which, upon a clear cut violation of a due process right, the per se exclusionary rule was not applied. [7] California permits introduction into evidence of conviction of a similar crime in proving the case in chief.

1982The Court ruled that the "adversary judicial criminal proceedings" had begun, requiring the exclusion of the out-of-court identification. [6] Compare exclusion of testimony of pretrial identification in this case, because Gilbert had no attorney, with Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969), infra, in which, upon a clear cut violation of a due process right, the per se exclusionary rule was not applied. [7] California permits introduction into evidence of conviction of a similar crime in proving the case in chief.

1975In Poole v. State, 216 So.2d 425 (Miss. 1968), this Court analyzed the Federal standards, and, quoting from Wade , stated as follows: A per se exclusionary rule was not applied in Wade , Stovall or Gilbert, supra, to all in court identifications which occurred after illegal confrontations.

1975In Kirby , as it had earlier said in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), the Court said that it is always necessary to scrutinize any pre-trial confrontation, and due process forbids a lineup that is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.

1975In Kirby , as it had earlier said in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), the Court said that it is always necessary to scrutinize any pre-trial confrontation, and due process forbids a lineup that is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.

1973In Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), Simmons contended that his pictures were shown to witnesses and the identification procedure was so unduly prejudicial as to fatally taint his conviction.

1973In Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), Simmons contended that his pictures were shown to witnesses and the identification procedure was so unduly prejudicial as to fatally taint his conviction.