Nothing in the record indicates that the confrontation was arranged by the government. We think that under the circumstances in this case no prejudice has been shown for the acts were not "so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that was denied due process of law." Stovall v.The independent origin of the identification of the defendant and significant other evidence connecting the defendant with the crime makes the inadvertent confrontation in the witness room without prejudice to the defendant. In addition, five of the government's identification witnesses based their identification of the defendant on clear recollection of the defendant's appearance at the time of robbery and a clear explanation of opportunity at that time to acquire facts sufficient to make an identification.Advising him of his "right not to submit to the interview did not deny the defendant a fair trial." United States v. The only advice given was the appropriate statement to the effect that the witness need not talk unless he wanted to. Here the witness was called and was cross examined by defendant's counsel. In these cases the intrusion prevented the party from interrogating his witnesses in court. 351, 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972), and the government's agent and lawyer in United States v. The action of the government's lawyer is quite unlike that of the judge in Webb v. Instructions to a witness not to cooperate with the other side or to talk to lawyers for the other side would not be proper, but a witness is free to talk or not unless compelled by order of the court. Witnesses are neither the property of the government nor of the defendant.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |