You are here: / / PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING A LACK OF UNDUE SUGGESTIVENESS...
,

PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING A LACK OF UNDUE SUGGESTIVENESS IN THE PHOTO ARRAY AND LINE UP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

The Second Department, over a substantial dissent, determined defendant's motion to suppress photo array and line up identification evidence should have been granted. The People did not meet their burden to demonstrate the lack of undue suggestiveness. The photo arrays were not preserved and certain detectives who participated in the photo array and line up identification were not called as witnesses at the Wade hearing:

At the suppression hearing, [detective] McDermott testified that he did not preserve the photo arrays viewed by [witness] Seeram because the computer that displayed those arrays was not attached to a printer. He stated that after Seeram identified the defendant from a photo array, McDermott used another computer to print out a single photograph of the defendant using the defendant's NYSID number, and then showed that photogaph to Seeram. It cannot be said that this testimony was sufficient to dispel any inference of suggestiveness. McDermott did not explain why he did not attach a printer to the computer Seeram was using, or why he did not attempt to reconstruct the photo array (see id.). Moreover, the single photograph was not signed by Seeram, and was dated January 9, 2006, the day following Seerem's photographic identification procedure.

Further, the People failed to produce the detective who conducted [witness] Clyne's photographic identification procedure, or the detective who conducted Seeram's lineup identification procedure. Contrary to our dissenting colleague's determination, McDermott did not conduct either of those procedures, and, therefore, could not provide competent evidence as to the circumstances thereof and what, if anything, transpired during those identification procedures… . People v McDonald, 2016 NY Slip Op 03017, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


You might also like
SMALL DEFECT THAT WAS UNDER THE HANDRAIL AND NOT IN THE WALKING SURFACE OF THE STAIRWAY WAS TRIVIAL AND NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL INTO A THREE-FEET-DEEP HOLE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE HOLE WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT
Contract to Share Commissions with Person Not Licensed to Sell Insurance is Illegal and Unenforceable
ONCE THE PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS PROPERLY SOUGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR OPTION TO PURCHASE, THE LANDLORD, WHO IMPROPERLY REFUSED TO HONOR THE OPTION, NO LONGER HAD A RIGHT TO USE AND OCCUPANCY PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
ALLOWING DRIVING AND PARKING ON A LONG ISLAND BEACH MAY CONSTITUTE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE NEITHER PARENT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME, THE PARENT WITH THE GREATER RESOURCES SHOULD BE DEEMED THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2007 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THE INITIAL ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND DID NOT, THEREFORE, ACCELERATE THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT),
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE UNRELATED TO THE CHARGED OFFENSES WAS REVERSIBLE... IF THE SORA COURT’S RELIANCE ON THE VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY,...