Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)

Facts

Victim was attacked and thrown to the ground in her kitchen.  Her child came out and the perpetrator took the victim from the house and raped her.  She gave the police a general description and was shown between 30 to 40 photographs.  One photo resembled the perpetrator and after being unable to locate similar people, a showup was conducted seven months later.  The victim identified Biggers.

Procedural History

The victim testified at trial and Biggers brought a habeas corpus action.  The District Court held that the claims were not barred and held the station-house identification procedure was so suggestive as to violate due process.

Issue(s)

Did the District Court err in finding that the identification and the circumstances surrounding it failed to comport with due process requirements?

Holding(s)

Yes.

Reasoning/Analysis

The Court found that the question is whether under the totality of the circumstances the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive.  The factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification are (1) opportunity of the witness to view the criminal, (2) the witness’ degree of attention, (3) the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.  The District Court’s conclusions on the critical facts are unsupported by the record.  The victim faced Biggers directly and intimately.  She was no casual observer, but rather the victim of one of the most personally humiliating of all crimes.

Judgment/Outcome

The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.