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
Latest Conference:
N/A
Question Presented (from Petition)
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?
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
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