No. 22-5749
Justin Jamal Warner v. South Carolina
IFP
Tags: criminal-defendant-rights criminal-procedure due-process eyewitness-identification in-camera-hearing law-enforcement-procedure out-of-court-identification police-misconduct reliability-standard surveillance-video unreliable-evidence video-identification
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy
DueProcess Privacy
Latest Conference:
N/A
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a criminal defendant is entitled to an in camera hearing on the reliability of an out-of-court identification made through video technology under suggestive circumstances
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a criminal defendant is entitled to an in camera hearing pursuant to Neil v. Biggers, 408 U.S. 188 (1972) on the reliability of an out-of-court identification where the identification is made by a person who was not physically present at the scene of the crime but identified the defendant through the use of video technology under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement? i
Docket Entries
2022-10-14
Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.
2022-10-12
Agreement to dismiss the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46.1 filed.
2022-08-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 3, 2022)
Attorneys
Justin Jamal Warner
Robert Michael Dudek — SC Office of Appellate Defense, Petitioner