Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A due process standard that bars admission of an eyewitness identification obtained through unnecessarily suggestive procedures when the totality of the circumstances shows a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Reliability under all the facts is the linchpin of the analysis.
Sebastian Santos briefly saw a mechanic smash a kiosk at close range in a busy depot. Two days later officers showed him only that mechanic's badge photo. Santos identified the man immediately and remained consistent in court. The identification is admissible because the short interval, close view, and prior familiarity establish reliability despite the suggestive display.
Simone Sanders saw a thief through her apartment window while officers stood nearby. She pointed out Scott Summers without any police prompting or arranged display. Because the police did not orchestrate the suggestiveness, the court admits the identification without a preliminary reliability hearing.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sasha Stone was raped and later viewed the suspect in a station-house showup seven months afterward. She had never identified anyone in prior lineups or photos and expressed certainty based on her memory of the attack. The identification is admissible because the totality of circumstances, including her prior resistance to suggestion, shows no substantial likelihood of misidentification.
Due process requires exclusion only when an unnecessarily suggestive police procedure creates a substantial likelihood of misidentification under the totality of the circumstances. Reliability is the key inquiry. If the identification remains reliable despite suggestiveness, it is admissible.
No. The exclusionary rule applies only when police orchestrate the unnecessarily suggestive circumstances. Spontaneous identifications not arranged by law enforcement do not trigger a preliminary judicial reliability screening.
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. These factors are balanced against the corrupting effect of any suggestive procedure.
No. A single photograph is suggestive but not automatically excluded. The identification remains admissible if the totality of the circumstances demonstrates sufficient reliability and no substantial likelihood of misidentification.
…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…