Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share When A Perpetrator Description Can Be So Detailed And So Good It Damages The Photo Lineup (Photos Enclosed)
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
When A Perpetrator Description Can Be So Detailed And So Good It Damages The Photo Lineup (Photos Enclosed)
People v. Clifton, 2019 IL App (1st) 151967 (April). Episode 632 (Duration 8:20)
Unduly suggestive ID, you make the call photos provided here. ** This opinion has photos.
Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download
APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS
SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS
DIRECT DOWNLOAD
Charges & Sentence
Defendant was found guilty of armed robbery and sentenced to 35 years in prison (20 years for the underlying offense and 15 years for the mandatory firearm add-on).
The Crime
2 men walked up to a group of 4 people (1 man & 3 women) and rob them.
One man said “you know what this is, it’s a robbery” and then pointed a gun at them. The man pointed the gun as close as one inch from one of the victim’s face.
The man took two phones from the victim’s pants pocket. The other man took items from the women. The men then got into a Jeep and drove away.
The Description
The victim described the armed offender as having long dreads, a blue hoodie, all white low top Nikes, and a black Jeep.
A second victim described the man with the gun as having “dreads” and wearing a blue or black hoodie and white shoes.
One of other lady’s said that the man with the gun wore white gym shoes, jogging pants, and a dark black or blue hoodie. Also, the man “had a scar or a tattoo” on his face.
Issue
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification. He contends that the procedures used by the Chicago Police Department were unduly suggestive because he was the only participant in the lineup wearing a dark sweatshirt, white shoes, had dreadlocks and a tattoo on his face.
Defendant’s Burden
First, the defendant bears the burden to show the pretrial lineup as “impermissibly suggestive.”
If the defendant successfully makes the showing, the burden shifts to the State to present clear and convin...
View all episodes
By Police NuggetsPeople v. Clifton, 2019 IL App (1st) 151967 (April). Episode 632 (Duration 8:20)
Unduly suggestive ID, you make the call photos provided here. ** This opinion has photos.
Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download
APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS
SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS
DIRECT DOWNLOAD
Charges & Sentence
Defendant was found guilty of armed robbery and sentenced to 35 years in prison (20 years for the underlying offense and 15 years for the mandatory firearm add-on).
The Crime
2 men walked up to a group of 4 people (1 man & 3 women) and rob them.
One man said “you know what this is, it’s a robbery” and then pointed a gun at them. The man pointed the gun as close as one inch from one of the victim’s face.
The man took two phones from the victim’s pants pocket. The other man took items from the women. The men then got into a Jeep and drove away.
The Description
The victim described the armed offender as having long dreads, a blue hoodie, all white low top Nikes, and a black Jeep.
A second victim described the man with the gun as having “dreads” and wearing a blue or black hoodie and white shoes.
One of other lady’s said that the man with the gun wore white gym shoes, jogging pants, and a dark black or blue hoodie. Also, the man “had a scar or a tattoo” on his face.
Issue
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress identification. He contends that the procedures used by the Chicago Police Department were unduly suggestive because he was the only participant in the lineup wearing a dark sweatshirt, white shoes, had dreadlocks and a tattoo on his face.
Defendant’s Burden
First, the defendant bears the burden to show the pretrial lineup as “impermissibly suggestive.”
If the defendant successfully makes the showing, the burden shifts to the State to present clear and convin...