Eyewitness Identification
Perry, Barion v. New Hampshire (2011)
Counsel:
Innocence Network, Miller & Chevalier
Case Number:
10-8974
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers v. Superintendent of Chicago Police Department (2009)
Court:
Appellate Court of Illinois
Counsel:
Innocence Network (by Dickstein Shapiro)
Case Number:
1-08-2073, 1-08-3414
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Perry, Barion v. New Hampshire (2011)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Miller & Chevalier
Case Number:
10-8974
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Perez, Jose Antonio v. U.S. (2006)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network (by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher)
Position: Courts should abandon or modify the Brathwaite/Biggers five-prong test for evaluating "reliability" of suggestive eyewitness identification procedures.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Shomberg, Forest, State v. (2005)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project
Case Number:
2004AP630-CR
Position: Expert testimony on eyewitness identifications should be per se admissible in any case in which disputed eyewitness evidence is presented.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Davis, Troy, State v. (2007)
Court:
Georgia Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network, Georgia Innocence Project, Wisconsin Innocence Project
Case Number:
S07A-1758
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Avery, Brian, State v. (2008)
Counsel:
Innocence Network
Case Number:
2008AP000500
Position: Arguing that eyewitness identification evidence and disputed confession evidence both are fallible, and therefore should not alone be the basis for denying a new trial based on other new evidence of Innocence.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Ledbetter, Laquan, State v (2005)
Court:
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Counsel:
Innocence Project, Center on Wrongful Convictions, Wisconsin Innocence Project, North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, Northern California Innocence Project
Case Number:
S.C. 17307
Position: Courts should adopt a rule that failure to caution a witness that the culprit might not be present at an identification procedure renders that procedure unnecessarily suggestive, requiring, at the very least, a curative jury instruction.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Dubose, Tyrone, State v. (2005)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project
Case Number:
03-1690-CR
Position: Showup evidence should be inadmissible in all cases unless state can prove that a showup was truly necessary. Courts should abandon or modify the Brathwaite/Biggers five-prong test for evaluating "reliability" of suggestive eyewitness identification procedures.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Ford, Tony Egbuna v. Dretke ()
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Center on Wrongful convictions
Position: Expert testimony on eyewitness identifications should be per se admissible in any case in which disputed eyewitness evidence is presented.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
