Search results
Decided June 16, 1977. 432 U.S. 98. Syllabus. Glover, a trained Negro undercover state police officer, purchased heroin from a seller through the open doorway of an apartment while standing for two or three minutes within two feet of the seller in a hallway illuminated by natural light.
Brathwaite testified in his own defense that he had been sick and stuck in his own apartment on May 5. [1] His wife and doctor corroborated this testimony. [2] Indeed, Brathwaite had surgery for a herniated disc. [1] The jury found Brathwaite guilty, and he was sentenced to 6–9 years in prison. [2]
This essay will analyze the approach to eyewitness identification in Manson v. Brathwaite, discuss the criticisms associated with the test, and propose sugges-tions to combat the pitfalls of eyewitness identification evidence. I. Approach to Eyewitness Identification Before Manson v. Brathwaite In United States v.
Facts of the case. An undercover police officer bought drugs from a narcotics vendor. The officer saw the vendor up close for several minutes. The officer described the vendor to another officer who obtained a photograph of Nowell A. Brathwaite and gave it to the first officer.
27 lut 2008 · Manson v Braithwaite. Prior to 1972, there was a presumption, based in large part on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Stovall v. Denno (1967), that unnecessarily suggestive eyewitness identification procedures should be excluded as evidence at trial. This became known as the per se exclusion rule.
A major cause of wrongful convictions is mistaken eyewitness identification. The leading Supreme Court case governing due process challenges to identification procedures, Manson v. Brathwaite, is almost 30 years old, and does not account for decades of social science research on eyewitness I.D.
MANSON v. BRATHWAITE: LOOKING FOR THE SILVER LINING IN THE AREA OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS. Eyewitness identifications are important in criminal prosecutions be-cause they can lend certainty in cases which might otherwise depend upon weak circumstantial evidence.'
