Perry v. New Hampshire

2012-01-11
Share:

Headline: Court holds judges need not pre-screen eyewitness IDs made under suggestive but non-police-arranged circumstances, leaving such evidence to juries and defense tools and making pretrial exclusion harder for defendants.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Limits judges’ power to exclude non-police-arranged eyewitness IDs pretrial.
  • Leaves evaluation of such IDs to jury, defense cross-examination, and evidence rules.
Topics: eyewitness identification, criminal trials, police procedures, fair trial, evidence reliability

Summary

Background

A man standing in a Nashua, New Hampshire, parking lot—Barion Perry—was pointed out by a neighbor, Nubia Blandón, after police officers found him near damaged cars and stolen stereo equipment. Perry was charged with theft and criminal mischief. He asked the trial court to keep Blandón’s out-of-court identification out of evidence, arguing that the parking-lot encounter was suggestive and likely to cause a mistaken ID. The New Hampshire courts denied the request and the Supreme Court agreed to review the question.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Constitution’s Due Process Clause requires a judge to hold a preliminary reliability hearing when an eyewitness makes an identification under suggestive circumstances that the police did not arrange. The Court said no. It relied on its prior decisions holding that a judge’s special pretrial reliability screen is required when law enforcement arranged unnecessarily suggestive procedures. When police did not create the suggestive circumstances, the Court concluded, the usual trial protections—counsel, cross-examination, rules of evidence, and jury instructions—are the proper ways to test reliability. The Court emphasized that the pretrial remedy was designed in part to deter police manipulation of lineups and similar identification procedures.

Real world impact

Going forward, defendants whose identifications arose from suggestive circumstances not set up by police will generally not get a special pretrial reliability ruling. Instead, reliability disputes will be decided at trial through cross-examination, jury instructions, evidence rules, and other defenses. The decision affirms the New Hampshire courts’ judgment.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas joined the opinion but wrote separately urging narrower grounds. Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing the risk of mistaken identification is the same whether suggestion was intentional or accidental and would have applied the Court’s ordinary two-step test and remanded.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases