Admissibility Of Identification Testimony

27 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Field
  625 F.2d 862· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-01 ·cited 59×
  The court held that further proceedings on the admissibility of the Jacobson identification were unwarranted and it should have been excluded.
• United States v. Fields
  871 F.2d 188· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of Robert Wayne's out-of-court statements through Gail Brown was proper, and that evidence of other crimes was admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 804(b)(3) and 404(b).
• United States v. Johnson
  540 F.2d 954· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for separate trials, nor in admitting identification testimony, and that any delay in bringing a defendant before a magistrate did not prejudice him.
• State v. Ciongoli
  313 So. 2d 41· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-04-18 ·cited 22×
  Florida appealed a trial judge's suppression of eyewitness identification evidence from a police station show-up conducted shortly after a robbery. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the suppression order, holding that pre-indictment suggestive identification procedures
• Mullen v. Blackburn
  808 F.2d 1143· 5th Cir.· 1987-02-05 ·cited 17×
  The court held that none of the appellant's claims, individually or collectively, presented a constitutional violation warranting habeas relief.
• United States v. Nector Ofarril and Louis Rosa
  779 F.2d 791· 2d Cir.· 1985-11-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government need not prove defendants knew they were within 1000 feet of a school, and that identification testimony was admissible.
• United States v. Young
  512 F.2d 321· 4th Cir.· 1975-03-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the totality of circumstances constituted probable cause for arrest, and an unlawful arrest does not per se make inadmissible positive identification testimony.
• Readus Roscoe Shepard v. State
  213 So. 2d 11· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-07-31 ·cited 14×
  Shepard was convicted of uttering a forged instrument. On appeal, he argued that he lacked counsel at a pretrial police lineup identification, which allegedly tainted subsequent trial identifications. The appellate court affirmed, finding that trial witnesses had sufficient indep
• United States v. Jackson
  688 F.2d 1121· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-15 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a lay witness's opinion testimony identifying a defendant in surveillance photographs is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 if rationally based on perception and helpful to the jury, even if the witness's familiarity is limited.
• Latrice DAY v. State
  105 So. 3d 1284· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-02-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while a police officer's identification testimony based on prior knowledge is admissible, revealing the officer's status to the jury is improper and prejudicial, requiring reversal.
• Puryear v. State
  774 So. 2d 846· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-12-27 ·cited 10×
  Kevin Puryear was convicted of robbery after a victim identified him based largely on his clothing, height, and weight rather than facial recognition. The court addressed whether the victim's out-of-court descriptions of the assailant, relayed by a detective and the victim's boyf
• United States v. Manko
  694 F.2d 1125· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that identification evidence was admissible because it was reliable under the totality of the circumstances, despite potentially suggestive procedures, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
• Simons v. State
  389 So. 2d 262· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-10-07 ·cited 8×
  Simons was convicted of robbery based partly on eyewitness identification testimony following an uncounseled arraignment where the witness was present. The court reverses and remands, holding that the prosecution violated the Sixth Amendment by deliberately bringing the witness t
• State v. Fischer
  387 So. 2d 473· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-08-20 ·cited 6×
  Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed whether a rape victim could make an in-court identification of her attacker based solely on tactile impressions gained during the assault, when she never saw his face or heard his actual voice. The court held that such identifica
• United States v. Sauls
  520 F.2d 568· 4th Cir.· 1975-07-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the trial court erred by not specifically instructing the jury on the voluntariness of the defendant's confession, this error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence and the defendant's lack of defense.
• United States v. Hinkle
  448 F.2d 1157· D.C. Cir.· 1971-07-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing in-court identifications by witnesses Arthur and Smith, finding they had an independent source despite initial identification issues.
• Allen v. State
  219 So. 2d 444· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-03-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's contentions on appeal were without merit and that there was substantial competent evidence to support the jury's verdict.
• Reynolds v. Lockhart
  470 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1972-12-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that neither the pretrial lineup nor the in-court identification procedure were impermissibly suggestive, thus not violating due process.
• Nolan v. State
  277 So. 3d 1147· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-08-23 ·cited 2×
  A detective may testify to identify a person in surveillance video when the detective has had extensive opportunity to observe that person in person and the suspect's appearance has changed since the crime, placing the identification outside the jury's knowledge and experience. T
• Willie G. Banks v. State
  702 So. 2d 1381· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-12-31 ·cited 2×
• Collins v. State
  626 So. 2d 991· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that photo-identifications were admissible and affirmed convictions except for grand theft, which lacked evidence. Sentencing errors were also corrected.
• United States v. Gugino
  860 F.2d 546· 2d Cir.· 1988-10-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a single access device can be both a counterfeit and an unauthorized access device under 18 U.S.C. § 1029, and thus a defendant can be convicted under both subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) for its use.
• Moss v. Wolff
  505 F.2d 811· 8th Cir.· 1974-12-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that photographic identification procedures, even if somewhat suggestive, do not require setting aside a conviction if there is an independent basis for the identification.
• Johnson v. State
  68 So. 3d 366· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-08-23 ·cited 1×
  Johnson was convicted of sale of a controlled substance based on identification testimony from a confidential informant and three law enforcement officers. The First District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction because the trial court erroneously admitted identification testi
• State v. Green
  455 So. 2d 531· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-08-22
• United States v. Emanuel "Bubbles" Daniels
  506 F.2d 791· 3d Cir.· 1974-12-30
  The court held that the denial of defense counsel's request to see marked ballots during a lineup did not constitute a constitutional violation, and thus the identification testimony was properly admitted.
• United States v. Dorantes
  471 F.2d 298· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-08
  The court held that in-court identification testimony is admissible even without a pre-trial lineup, and that the codefendant's testimony and the co-defendant's disappearance did not warrant reversal.