By motion dated April 26, 1986, the defendant moved to suppress identification testimony on the grounds that police had arranged an unduly suggestive showup. The answering papers of the prosecutor asserted that there was no police arranged showup. These papers further indicated that defendant had been identified by one witness at the point where the car in which defendant was fleeing was stopped by the police. He was identified by another witness in an allegedly spontaneous...
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.
