Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Editor: Will Hanlon & Charlie Lambert
Profession: Tampa Defense Attorneys

Category: Legal Updates

The 3rd DCA ruled that while using a single photo to identify a defendant was unnecessarily suggestive it did not warrant suppression of the defendant's identification. Gillis v. State , 31 F.L.W. D1520 (3d DCA 5/31/2006). Both witnesses to the murder of the victim were familiar with the defendant. This fact along with other factors...i.e. ((1) the oppurtunity of the witness to view the suspect at the time of the crime, (2) the witnesses degree of attention, (3) the accuracy of the witnesses prior description of the suspect, (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the time of the confrontation, (5) and the legth of time between the crime and the confrontation, caused the 3rd DCA to agree with the trial judge's decision to deny the defendant's motion to suprress. These factors were set out the in the United States Supreme Court decision of Neil v. Biggers. Neil v. Biggers,409 U.S. 188, 199-200 (1972). It seems the single photo ID many times will be suppressed, unless circumstances similar to this case are present.