Also known as: prior identification · prior ID · pretrial identification
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An out-of-court statement identifying a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier. The statement qualifies as nonhearsay when the declarant testifies at trial and remains subject to cross-examination concerning it.
Carla stood three feet from an unmasked robber in a well-lit bank and stared at his face for nearly a minute. Two weeks later police presented Reed in a suggestive roadside show-up. At trial Carla identified Reed in court. The court admitted the in-court identification after finding her extended opportunity to view, high attention, accurate prior description, certainty, and short time lapse supplied an independent source.
Police conducted a post-indictment lineup at which Wade was identified by witnesses. Wade's counsel was not notified or present. The witnesses later identified Wade in court. The court considered whether the in-court identifications rested on observations independent of the lineup.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A child testified at trial that her father had abused her. The government offered her earlier statements to relatives identifying him as the abuser. The court admitted the prior identifications after determining they were consistent with her testimony and offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication.
Foster identified Owens in a hospital interview days after an assault. At trial Foster could not recall the identification or even seeing his assailant. The government introduced the earlier identification through another witness. The court admitted the prior identification because Foster testified and was subject to cross-examination.
A witness spontaneously identified Perry as the shooter while standing at her window. No police arranged the encounter. At trial the witness identified Perry again. The court admitted the in-court identification because the absence of state-orchestrated suggestion removed any due-process reliability inquiry.
A witness viewed a video of animal cruelty and identified Stevens as the person shown. At trial the government offered the witness's earlier identification from the video. The court admitted the prior identification after confirming the witness testified and remained available for cross-examination.
A prior identification is admissible as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(C) when the declarant testifies at trial, is subject to cross-examination about the statement, and the statement identifies a person the declarant perceived earlier. Any weaknesses in the basis for the identification affect weight rather than admissibility.
Supporting sources
No. An unnecessarily suggestive pretrial procedure does not automatically exclude a later in-court identification. The court must determine whether the in-court identification rests on an independent source by weighing opportunity to view, degree of attention, accuracy of prior description, level of certainty, and time between crime and confrontation.
Supporting sources
Courts consider the witness's opportunity to view the perpetrator at the time of the crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of any prior description, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time elapsed between the crime and the confrontation.
Supporting sources
No. The rule contains no requirement that the prior identification be made under oath or in a formal proceeding. The only statutory requirements are that the declarant testify, be subject to cross-examination, and identify a person perceived earlier.
Supporting sources
…has been the degree of suggestion inherent in the manner in which the prosecution presents the suspect to witnesses for pretrial identification. A commentator has observed that "[t]he influence of improper suggestion upon identifying witnesses probably accounts for more miscarriages of justice than any other single factor—perhaps…