I swear it was him!
If an identification is independently reliable, it will not be excluded solely because police identification techniques were suggestive.
Manson v. Braithwaite
After a suspect has waived his Miranda rights and talked to law enforcement officers, officers may keep questioning him unless and until he unambiguously asserts his right to counsel.
Davis v. U.S.
Unlawfully obtained evidence may be admitted if it would have inevitably been discovered
Nix v. Williams
A prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.
Wolf v. Colorado
a trial judge may not accept the defendant's guilty plea without an affirmative showing that such plea was intelligent and voluntary
Boykin v. Alabama
A victim’s identification of her rapist made after a one-on-one confrontation for identification purposes is not so suggestive that it violates due process.
Neil v. Biggers
Once the suspect given his Miranda warnings has invoked his right to silence, questioning may resume once a significant period of time has passed.
Michigan v. Mosely
Even where there is some link between the illegality and the evidence, where the link is sufficiently attenuated as to be severed, the evidence is admissible
Brown v. Illinois
Violation of the knock and announce rule doesn’t require the suppression of all evidence found in a warranted search
Hudson v. Michigan
A district court may not dismiss an otherwise valid indictment because the government failed to disclose to the grand jury substantial exculpatory evidence in its possession.
U.S. v. Williams
uA post-indictment lineup is a critical stage in a criminal prosecution and therefore the accused is entitled to the assistance of counsel as this stage. Because eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable in nature, lineups present a ripe time for manipulation of witness perception. Because the result of this procedure bears directly on the question of guilt or innocence, the conduct of the lineup must be closely monitored. The presence of the suspect’s counsel is essential for this purpose.
U.S. v. Wade
An accused who has expressed the desire to deal with police only through counsel can’t be interrogated by police before counsel has been made available to him, if he accused does not initiate further communication with the police himself.
Edwards v. Arizona
Exclusionary rule does not apply when police act in good faith
U.S. v. Leon
The Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not obtained by a suggestive identification procedure employed by law enforcement.
Perry v. New Hampshire
Any words or actions on the part of the police that they should know a reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect constitute interrogation under Miranda.
Rhode Island v. Innis
A suggestive lineup identification which makes it inevitable that the identification will be positive violates due process.
Foster v. California
Once the right to counsel has been invoked and the suspect has refused to answer, any evidence obtained through continued custodial interrogation is inadmissible.
Brewer v. Williams
Even when a stop is illegal, discovering an arrest warrant provides a basis for police to arrest an individual and then do a search incident to lawful arrest. Finding the arrest warrant attenuates the taint.
Utah v. Strieff
What is the two-step analysis in Perry v. New Hampshire?
First, determine whether is law-enforcement employed in identification procedure that was suggested in nature.
If so then (second step) the reviewing court must consider whether the improper identification procedure tainted the resulting identification in a manner that would render it unreliable and therefore inadmissible.
Authorities may not use incriminating statements gained from an accused secretly after he has been indicted, and in the absence of counsel
Massiah v. U.S.
The Sixth Amendment does not require that defense counsel be given the opportunity to be present at pretrial, post-indictment photographic identifications by government witnesses.
U.S. v. Ash
Police may use statements made to operatives where the statements were voluntarily made and was not the product of interrogation. The defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks.
Kuhlman v. Wilson
Staying overnight in another’s home is a longstanding social custom that serves functions recognized as valuable by society. Society recognizes that a houseguest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host’s home.
Minnesota v. Olson
Name three of the five factors from Neil v. Biggers
-opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime
-witness' degree of attention; - prior description of criminal; -witness' certainty at the confrontation;
-time between time and confrontation.
In order to use statements coming from custodial interrogation, the prosecution must demonstrate the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.
Miranda v. Arizona