Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in not requiring the production of the identifying nonpolice witnesses at the Wade hearing, and therefore, that their identification testimony was inadmissible. We disagree. "[I]t is only when the defense has established that a pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive, after the prosecution has met its initial burden of going forward to demonstrate reasonableness...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
