"We take this opportunity to clarify the standard governing in-court identifications preceded by an admissible out-of-court identification. Once the motion is filed, the defendant would continue to bear the burden of showing that the in-court identification would be unnecessarily suggestive and that there is not ‘good reason’ for it.”Ĭommonwealth v. Bars “first-time in-court showups where there is no ‘good reason’ for such a showup.e place the burden on the prosecutor to move in limine to admit the in-court identification of the defendant by a witness where there has been no out-of-court identification. 228 (2014)ġ of 2 cases that preceded the Gomes case addressing new procedures for in-court identification. only where there is 'good reason' for its admission, with the burden placed on the Commonwealth to move in limine to admit such an identification and, subsequently, on the defendant to show that the identification would be unnecessarily suggestive and that there is not 'good reason' for it."Ĭommonwealth v. before trial, an in-court showup identification by the witness will be admissible. “here an eyewitness who was present during the commission of a crime has made something less than an unequivocal positive identification of the defendant. “In criminal trials that commence after the issuance of this opinion, a cross-racial instruction should always be included when giving the model eyewitness identification instruction, unless the parties agree that there was no cross-racial identification.”Ĭommonwealth v Collins, 470 Mass. 16 (2015) Witnesses have more difficulty identifying persons of other races.
0 kommentar(er)
