Perry v. New Hampshire
565 U.S. 228
SCOTUS2012Background
- Blandón identified Perry at the scene during a late-night parking-lot incident after Perry was seen near damaged cars.
- Perry was arrested; prosecution sought to admit Blandón’s in-court identification of him from the earlier event.
- New Hampshire trial court admitted Blandón’s out-of-court identification despite Perry’s argument it resulted from a one-person showup.
- New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the admission, applying a two-step test only when police-arranged suggestive procedures occurred.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether due process requires pretrial reliability screening for identifications not arranged by police.
- Court holds that due process screening is not required when police did not arrange the suggestive identification
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires pretrial reliability screening for eyewitness IDs not police-arranged | Perry: Brathwaite requires screening in all suggestive identifications | Perry: reliability check should apply regardless of police arrangement | No; screening not required absent police arrangement |
| Role of jury and other safeguards in evaluating eyewitness testimony | Jury should assess reliability with cross-examination and instructions | Judicial pre-screening unnecessary when safeguards exist | Jury safeguards and ordinary rules suffice; no pre-screening mandatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (test for suggestive identification in photo arrays involves substantial likelihood of misidentification)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (totality-of-circumstances approach to reliability; factors for identification)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability as linchpin in admissibility of identification; totality of circumstances)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (warned against unfair pretrial confrontation; concern with eyewitness reliability)
- Wade v. United States, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (right to counsel at postindictment identification procedures; dangers of pretrial identification)
- Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970) (pretrial lineup not inherently violative; due process requires more than absence of misconduct)
- Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969) (due process may require exclusion of identification obtained through police conduct that made misidentification almost inevitable)