Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was identified in an unduly-suggestive identification procedure in which only he exhibited a prominent facial scar. We disagree. While it is true that the defendant alone had a facial scar, from the testimony and photographic evidence concerning the lineup, it appears that the defendant was positioned in such a manner that his scar was not visible and that it played no part in the resulting identification...
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.
