Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi 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 sentences2020In so doing, a trial court must engage in “a two-step inquiry for allegations of an impermissible identification: (1) the court must 6 first determine whether the identification was unduly suggestive; if that inquiry is answered affirmatively, then (2) the court must determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances and using the five Biggers factors, the identification was nevertheless reliable.” Id. 2009The five Biggers factors are “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” Roche, 913 So.2d at 311 (quoting Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ). ¶ 26. | 2 | 7 |
York v. Stategreen1 sentence2008These factors were adopted by our supreme court in York v. State, 413 So.2d 1372, 1383 (Miss.1982) and are as follows: (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." For the following reasons, *145 we find that the State has sufficiently demonstrated that Penn's identification of Weaver met the fi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roche v. State
green
2 sentences2009The five Biggers factors are “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” Roche, 913 So.2d at 311 (quoting Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ). ¶ 26. 2007The five Biggers factors are “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” Roche, 913 So. 2d at 311 (quoting Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200 ). ¶26. | 2 | 2007–2009 |
Horne v. State
green
2 sentences2006In Horne v. State, 825 So.2d 627, 637 (Miss. 2002), this Court set forth the five Biggers factors which this court must consider to determine whether the standard has been met for the identification testimony. 2005In Horne v. State, 825 So. 2d 627, 637 (Miss. 2002), this Court set forth the five Biggers factors which this court must consider to determine whether the standard has been met for the identification testimony. | 2 | 2005–2006 |
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.