Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Martin

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided July 19, 2006PublishedCited by 62 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCowin, J.

This case requires the court to apply the principles applicable to one-on-one identifications to determine whether the defendant has proved that the showup here was “so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification” as to deny him due process of law. Commonwealth v. Venios, 378 Mass. 24, 27 (1979), quoting Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 301-302 (1967). We conclude that the defendant has not met this burden and that the admission in evidence of the showup identification procedure was therefore permissible. We further resolve the defendant’s other claims of…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Commonwealth v. LatimoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
  4. Commonwealth v. BowdenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  5. Commonwealth v. RodriquezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by62 opinions

  1. State v. HendersonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2011
  2. Commonwealth v. CraytonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
  3. Commonwealth v. Silva-SantiagoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2009
  4. Commonwealth v. GomesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2015
  5. Commonwealth v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2011

57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API