Docket nos. 10-8974 End date 2012 | Opinion announcement Opinion announcement | |
Full case name Barion Perry, Petitioner v. State of New Hampshire, Respondent Citations 565 U.S. ___ (more)132 S. Ct. 716, 181 L. Ed. 2d 694 Prior history Motion to suppress denied, State v. Perry unreported (N.H. Super., 2010) ; affirmed, State v. Perry, No. 2009-0590 (N.H. November 18, 2010); certiorari granted, 563 ___ U. S. ___ (2011) Majority Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Kagan Similar United States v Alvarez, Kentucky v King, United States v Jones, J D B v North Carolina, Berghuis v Thompkins | ||
Perry v new hampshire oral argument november 02 2011
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. ___ (2012), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of eyewitness identifications. The case was granted certiorari on May 31, 2011, and set for argument on November 2, 2011.
Contents
- Perry v new hampshire oral argument november 02 2011
- Perry v new hampshire oyeztoday preview
- Background
- Decision of the Supreme Court
- Opinion of the Supreme Court
- References
Perry v new hampshire oyeztoday preview
Background
The plaintiff, Barion Perry was convicted for breaking into a car in 2008. A witness, Nubia Blandon told the police that she observed Perry committing the crime from her apartment window. Although she identified him at the scene of the crime, she was unable to pick him out from a line of photos nor describe him to the police. However a second witness was able to identify Perry out of a line of photos. Perry filed suit motioning to suppress the photos used by the police because the photo used of him was "unnecessarily suggestive." Perry lost his case, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld his conviction.
Decision of the Supreme Court
Amicus curiae briefs were filed by the American Psychological Association, the Innocence Network, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,.
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 8-1 decision on January 11, 2012, deciding that judicial examination of eye-witness testimony was required only in the case of police misconduct.
Held: The Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement.
The preeminent role of the jury in evaluating questionable evidence was cited by the court.
Opinion of the Supreme Court
Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas believes that the Due Process Clause is not a general guarantee against unfairness but rather only a guarantee of process before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property.
Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. She stated that it is not merely the act of suggestion, which creates a problem with due process, but the effect of an act of suggestion on the reliability of a resulting identification. She stated that the court's ruling would draw a distinction between intentionally suggestive conduct and inadvertently suggestive conduct, either of which could lead to the same unfair result.