DOJ-OGR-00005742.jpg
445 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
445 KB
Summary
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, dated October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The defense argues that a photographic identification of Ms. Maxwell conducted on June 23, 2021, was suggestive and tainted, and therefore should be suppressed by the Court. The argument cites several U.S. Supreme Court cases to support the claim that the procedure violated the defendant's right to due process.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell |
Mentioned as the subject of a photographic identification procedure.
|
|
| Simmons | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the legal case Simmons v. United States.
|
| Neil | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the legal case Neil v. Biggers.
|
| Biggers | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the legal case Neil v. Biggers.
|
| Manson | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the legal case Manson v. Brathwaite.
|
| Brathwaite | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the legal case Manson v. Brathwaite.
|
| Stovall | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the legal case Stovall v. Denno.
|
| Denno | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the legal case Stovall v. Denno.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Presented photographs for an identification procedure.
|
| Court | judicial body |
The entity being asked to suppress the identification.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-06-23
The Government presented a series of photographs for identification purposes, which is argued to be the functional equivalent of a one-on-one show-up.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of several legal case citations (e.g., Simmons v. United States).
|
Key Quotes (1)
"a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification."Source
— Simmons v. United States
(A quote from a legal precedent describing the risk created by suggestive police identification procedures.)
DOJ-OGR-00005742.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,203 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 392 Filed 10/29/21 Page 5 of 8
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
On June 23, 2021, almost twenty years after the alleged events, and 14 years after [REDACTED] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as the perpetrator of any crime, the Government presented [REDACTED] with a series of [REDACTED] photographs, attached as Exhibit A. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] The photographic identification procedure used was the functional equivalent of a one-on-one show-up. Any identification is tainted and should therefore be suppressed by the Court.
ARGUMENT
A defendant’s right to due process includes the right not to be the object of suggestive police identification procedures that create “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968); accord Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198 (1972); see also Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 106 n.9, 114 (1977). This principle applies both to show-ups, see, e.g., Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967), and to photographic identifications. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968).
2
DOJ-OGR-00005742
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document