Criminal Procedure
565 U.S. 228 (2012) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Study notes for Perry v. New Hampshire: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial reliability assessment for eyewitness identifications made under suggestive circumstances not arranged by law enforcement.
In Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court addresses the interaction between eyewitness identification procedures and the Due Process Clause. The case arises from a situation where an eyewitness observed an individual, Barion Perry, under potentially suggestive circumstances, but these circumstances were not created by law enforcement. The Court emphasized the principle that solely suggestive circumstances stemming from a witness's own perceptions do not trigger the need for a judicial reliability assessment. This marks a key development in how courts evaluate the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence, particularly in cases lacking police involvement in creating suggestive circumstances.
The Court’s decision rests on the notion that the reliability of eyewitness testimony is best addressed within the context of its probative value and the potential for wrongful conviction. By highlighting the absence of police orchestration in the suggestiveness of the identification, the majority argued that introducing a preliminary reliability hearing would unnecessarily complicate the judicial process and undermine the jury's role in assessing witness credibility. This case is critical for law students to understand the boundaries of due process in relation to eyewitness identification and the implications for future cases involving suggestive circumstances not orchestrated by law enforcement.
Perry's Test: Personal Perception Prevails - Identifications without Police Prompting do not Require Preliminary Reliability Checks.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Manson v. Brathwaite | In Manson, the suggestiveness of the identification was arranged by law enforcement, leading to a different analysis under the Due Process Clause. |
| Neil v. Biggers | Neil placed emphasis on the totality of circumstances test for reliability in identification, which included considerations of law enforcement involvement. |
The ruling maintains judicial efficiency and respects the jury's capability to assess witness credibility without unnecessary pre-trial procedures.
Witness misidentification is a significant cause of wrongful convictions, and requiring reliability assessments could better protect defendants' rights.
Perry v. New Hampshire may appear on exams discussing the standards for admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence, particularly focusing on due process concerns related to suggestive identifications not created by police. Students should analyze the impact of this ruling on future cases.