18 U.S.C. § 3502
Admissibility in evidence of eye witness testimony
The testimony of a witness that he saw the accused commit or participate in the commission of the crime for which the accused is being tried shall be admissible in evidence in a criminal prosecution in any trial court ordained and established under article III of the Constitution of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases, 1968–2004 · leading case: United States v. Patrick V., 359 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2004).
United States v. Patrick V., 359 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2004). “When confronted by the government’s “alarmist” argument that under appellant’s view a court could never impose detention on a juvenile, appellant responds that detention must be reserved for only those for whom “rehabilitation is not an option.”
United States v. Tyrone Smith, United States of Am. v. Anthony E. Gartrell, 551 F.2d 348 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “Given our disposition of appellants’ ineffective assistance argument, we deem it unnecessary to reach such issues as: (i) the existence of an independent source for eyewitnesses’ identifications of appellants at trial; (ii) constitutional limitations vei non on the admissibility…”
United States of Am. Ex Rel. Cleveland Reed v. Raymond Anderson, Warden, Delaware Corr. Ctr., 461 F.2d 739 (3rd Cir. 1972). “” Furthermore, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3502 as a direct response to the Wade decision.”
United States v. Charles J. Ash, Jr., 461 F.2d 92 (D.C. Cir. 1972). “Memorandum Order on Procedures for Obtaining Pretrial Eyewitness Identification, May 15, 1970. . The fair pre-trial identification procedures also reduce the possibility of any constitutional interposition against an in-court identification, and of a claim that this must…”
Fields v. United States, 368 A.2d 537 (D.C. 1977). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3502 , which arguably prevents the use of Jencks Act sanctions as to identification testimony by one who "saw the accused commit.”
United States v. Charles T. Bennett, Wilbert Haywood, Elmer Jessup, Henry Stanton & Farris Thomas, 409 F.2d 888 (2d Cir. 1969). “1968), we have no occasion to consider the effect or validity of 18 U.S.C. § 3502 , added by § 701 of the Crime Control Act of 1968.”
People v. Williams, 478 P.2d 942 (Cal. 1971). “, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 3502 ; Russell v. United States (1969) 408 F.”
United States v. Henry Albert Smith, United States of Am. v. Roderick Ashley Smith, 563 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir. 1977). “18 U.S.C. § 3502 ; 7 Wigmore, Evidence § 2034 p.”
United States v. Ben Herbert Sutherland, 428 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir. 1970). “ON PETITION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM: In a petition for rehearing, the Government contends that the eyewitness identification of Sutherland should be admissible — notwithstanding the impermissible suggestive picture spread — because of Section 701(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control…”
United States v. James Russell Rogers & Carl Henry Kent, 455 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1972). “2d 1331, 1333 ; 18 U.S.C. § 3502 [§ 701 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, P.”
United States v. Erwin Edward Ballard, United States of Am. v. Richard Henry Bryan, 423 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1970). “No issue concerning the application of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3502 (1969) is present in this case.”
United States v. Antonio Mitchell, 540 F.2d 1163 (3rd Cir. 1976). “[W]e believe that there is a possibility that in-court identification could be tainted by the fact that there might have been something suggested or something either done or said or the pictures might have been suggestive that this was the defendant.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.