You are here: / / NO RECORD SUPPORT FOR LOWER COURT’S DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION OF LINE-UPS...
,

NO RECORD SUPPORT FOR LOWER COURT’S DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION OF LINE-UPS WHERE DEFENDANT WAS THE ONLY PERSON WITH DREADLOCKS.

The Court of Appeals, in a fill-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined all of the line-up identifications of the defendant should have been suppressed. The suppression court found that defendant’s dreadlocks constituted a “distinctive feature.” Defendant was the only person in the line-up identifications with dreadlocks. Two of the victims mentioned dreadlocks in their statements to the police, and two did not. The suppression court suppressed only the two line-up identifications made by the victims who mentioned dreadlocks:

We by no means propose that a lineup is unduly suggestive, as a matter of law, merely because a defendant has a different hairstyle than some or all of the fillers. We further decline to categorically state what features may be considered so “distinct” as to render a lineup unduly suggestive. But here, the courts below concluded that defendant’s dreadlocks were distinctive — so much so that they rendered the lineup unduly suggestive as to the two victims … who had mentioned the perpetrator’s hairstyle in their initial description to the police. This conclusion is supported by the lineup photographs introduced into evidence at the hearing, which clearly depict defendant as the only person with long, visible dreadlocks. … The lower courts’ conclusion that this same distinctive feature was not unduly suggestive for [the other two victims] was premised solely on their having not included dreadlocks as part of their descriptions. No other findings of fact were made that would distinguish the outcomes from one another. Since our holding here clarifies that a witness’s failure to mention a distinctive feature in his or her initial description is not necessarily the determinative factor in assessing a lineup’s suggestivity, here, we must conclude that there was no record support for the lower courts’ denial of suppression for [two of the four] lineups … . People v Perkins, 2016 NY Slip Op 08483, CtApp 12-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (NO RECORD SUPPORT FOR LOWER COURT’S DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION OF LINE-UPS WHERE DEFENDANT WAS THE ONLY PERSON WITH DREADLOCKS)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, LINE-UPS, NO RECORD SUPPORT FOR LOWER COURT’S DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION OF LINE-UPS WHERE DEFENDANT WAS THE ONLY PERSON WITH DREADLOCKS)/SUPPRESSION (LINE-UPS, NO RECORD SUPPORT FOR LOWER COURT’S DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION OF LINE-UPS WHERE DEFENDANT WAS THE ONLY PERSON WITH DREADLOCKS)/LINE-UPS (NO RECORD SUPPORT FOR LOWER COURT’S DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION OF LINE-UPS WHERE DEFENDANT WAS THE ONLY PERSON WITH DREADLOCKS)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, NO RECORD SUPPORT FOR LOWER COURT’S DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION OF LINE-UPS WHERE DEFENDANT WAS THE ONLY PERSON WITH DREADLOCKS)

You might also like
THE COURT OF APPEALS MAJORITY HELD THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND THE DISSENT WENT TOO FAR BY INTERPRETING A SHORT PHRASE WITH GRAMMATICAL AND SPELLING ERRORS TO HAVE AMENDED THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT, WHICH WAS UNAMBIGUOUS (CT APP).
WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP). ​
Line Between Inadmissible Testimonial (Hearsay) Statements and Admissible Non-Testimonial Information Clarified
Notice Requirements for a Nonparty Subpoena Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4) Explained/Criteria for a Motion to Quash and Opposition to the Motion to Quash Explained
NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL. ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS (CT APP).
THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS OBSERVED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS STREET STOP DID NOT MEET THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A CRIME OR WAS IN POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” STANDARD; THE FRISK WAS THEREFORE ILLEGAL AND THE SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE’S RULE PROHIBITING DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH (CT APP).
WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ASSERT THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, DEFENDANT... REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH...