Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Neil v. Biggers

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal Proceduredue processeyewitness identificationtotality of circumstancesreliabilitydue processshowupeyewitness identification

Facts

The victim was raped after being seized at knifepoint in her home, walked about two blocks, and assaulted in the woods; the encounter lasted between 15 minutes and half an hour. She described her assailant to police as fat and flabby with smooth skin, bushy hair, a youthful voice, and also gave his approximate age, height, weight, complexion, and build. Over the next seven months she viewed lineups, showups, and 30 to 40 photographs but made no identification. Police later brought respondent past her in a station-house showup, and at her request he said, "shut up or I'll kill you," after which she identified him with no doubt.

Issue

Whether an affirmance by an equally divided Supreme Court is an issue "actually adjudicated" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(c), thereby barring later federal habeas review, and if not, whether the suggestive station-house showup identification violated due process. More specifically, the due process question was whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification was nevertheless reliable despite the suggestive confrontation.

Rule

An affirmance by an equally divided Supreme Court is not an "actual adjudication" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(c) and therefore does not bar subsequent habeas review. On the merits, the admission of identification evidence does not violate due process merely because the confrontation was suggestive or even unnecessarily suggestive; the central question is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification was reliable, with factors including the witness's opportunity to view the criminal, degree of attention, accuracy of prior description, level of certainty at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, a bookstore clerk, Lena Ortiz, was robbed by a man who stood across the counter from her for about six minutes in bright interior lighting while demanding cash and asking where the safe was. Lena immediately described him to police as a tall man in his early 20s with acne scars, a raspy voice, a narrow nose, and a gray hooded jacket. Four months later, after failing to identify anyone in two photo arrays, she identified Devin Marsh in a one-person station-house showup and said she was completely certain.

If Devin moves to suppress testimony about the station-house identification on due process grounds, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that suggestiveness alone does not require exclusion. The central question is whether there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Relevant factors include the witness's opportunity to view the perpetrator, degree of attention, accuracy of the prior description, certainty at the confrontation, and time between crime and confrontation. Here, Lena had a good opportunity to observe in bright light, gave a relatively detailed description, showed certainty, and previously declined to identify others. Even though the station-house showup was suggestive and the delay counts against reliability, the identification would likely be admitted.