Substrate Record: qid 1108

← back to the Substrate Record

qid 1108 · law

Question: An elderly woman was mugged and robbed on a public street. At the time of the offense, the victim only saw her assailant's eyes. A hooded sweatshirt and bandana concealed the rest of his face. A few days later, while the victim waited to be interviewed, she observed the defendant being escorted through the courthouse, in jail clothing, and restrained by handcuffs and leg irons. She identified him as the perpetrator shortly thereafter. Will the court allow that identification into evidence?

1. No, because the defendant was restrained which could have influenced the victim's identification.
2. Yes, the identification is allowed into evidence regardless of the circumstances.
3. Yes, because the victim had a few days to recall the perpetrator's eyes.
4. Yes, because the witness' recognition of someone is all that is needed; the reliability or credibility of it is subject to cross examination.
5. No, because prior statements of identification are considered hearsay and never allowed into evidence.
6. Yes, if the witness perceived the perpetrator by seeing his eyes, and made the identification on that basis it was reliable enough to be admitted.
7. No, because it is not reliable enough and there was too much suggestion to make a reasonably accurate identification.
8. Yes, because the defendant was in jail clothing, which suggests he is the perpetrator.
9. No, because the victim was under stress at the time of the offense, which could have affected her identification.
10. No, because the victim should have identified the perpetrator immediately after the offense.

Our answer: G. No, because it is not reliable enough and there was too much suggestion to make a reasonably accurate identification. Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)

A machine check confirms the quoted words appear at the source. A person has not yet reviewed these. EARN MARKS as a Human Reviewer