/no sub-STAN-shul LIE-klee-hood of mis-i-den-ti-fi-KAY-shun/·phrase
Also known as:substantial likelihood of misidentification · Neil v. Biggers test · Manson reliability factor
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A due process standard governing the admissibility of eyewitness identifications obtained through suggestive procedures. An identification satisfies the standard and remains admissible when the totality of the circumstances establishes its reliability despite any suggestiveness. Courts weigh the witness's opportunity to view the perpetrator, degree of attention, accuracy of any prior description, level of certainty, and time between the crime and the identification.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
3
Single Photo After Museum Theft
Curator Norman Nash watched member Neil Nair remove a sculpture from a well-lit pedestal during a members-only preview and observed him for thirty seconds. Two days later, security officer Nestor Navarro showed Nash a single membership-card photograph of Nair. Nash immediately confirmed the identification with certainty. The court admitted the identification because the strong opportunity to view, prior familiarity, short time lapse, and high certainty established reliability under the totality of the circumstances.
Single Photo After Bus Depot Vandalism
Dispatcher Nadia Novak saw a tall mechanic in a blue transit jacket smash a fare kiosk at close range in a busy depot and knew most employees by sight. Two days later, transit police showed Novak only the employee badge photo of Noreen Nguyen. Novak immediately identified Nguyen and remained consistent in court. The identification was admitted because Novak's close-range view, familiarity with employees, prompt certainty, and short interval demonstrated reliability despite the single-photo procedure.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Study Supplements
Spontaneous Window Identification
Witness Noelle North saw a man break into a neighbor's home and later spotted the same man through her window while officers stood nearby. North spontaneously identified the man without any police prompting or arranged procedure. The court admitted the identification because the police did not orchestrate the suggestiveness, so no preliminary reliability screening was required and the jury could assess the evidence directly.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What is the ultimate question a court must answer when an identification procedure was suggestive?+
The court must determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a substantial likelihood of misidentification. If the identification is sufficiently reliable, it is admissible even though the procedure was suggestive.
Supporting sources
Does due process require exclusion whenever police use a single photograph?+
No. A single photograph is suggestive, but the identification remains admissible if the reliability factors show no substantial likelihood of misidentification. Courts apply the totality-of-the-circumstances test rather than a per se exclusion rule.
Supporting sources
When does the due process exclusionary rule for identifications apply?+
The rule applies only when police arrange unnecessarily suggestive circumstances. If the suggestiveness is not police-orchestrated, such as a spontaneous witness identification, no preliminary judicial reliability screening is required.
Supporting sources
Which five factors determine whether an identification is reliable?+
Courts evaluate the witness's opportunity to view the perpetrator, degree of attention, accuracy of any prior description, level of certainty at the identification, and the length of time between the crime and the identification.
Supporting sources
409 U.S. 188 (1972)Criminal Procedure
…thus a good one, as she had previously resisted whatever suggestiveness inheres in a showup. Weighing all the factors, we find no substantial likelihood of misidentification. The evidence was properly allowed to go to the jury.[^maj-9] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of…