State v. Northup
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
1Opinion of the Court
POMEROY, Justice.
Once again we are asked by this appeal to review the troublesome and often recurring problem resulting from a line-up identification to determine whether or not the constitutional requirements elucidated by Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), have beén offended.
See: State v. Boyd, Me., 294 A.2d 459 (1972); State v. LeBlanc, Me., 290 A.2d 193 (1972).
Two reputable and highly respected young…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Gilbert v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Kirby v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- State v. MunseySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1956
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State v. CefaloSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
- State v. BarlowSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974
- State v. YorkSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974
- State v. CommeauSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
- State v. RoweSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.