Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,608
- 910
Last week, the court of appeals reversed a defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder. That doesn’t happen every day, so let’s unpack the case. The central issue concerns two eyewitnesses’ in-court identifications of the defendant.
The crime. The case is State v. Malone. It began when two men approached Kevette Jones on Jones’s front porch. They asked where his friend Jared Alston was, apparently because Alston had cheated them in a drug deal. Jones said he didn’t know. Dissatisfied with that response, one of the men fatally shot him.
The witnesses. Claudia Lopez and Cindy Alvarez were on Jones’s porch at the time and were eyewitnesses to the murder. Lopez provided police with a general description of the perpetrators after the shooting. She was unable to identify the defendant in a photo lineup, though she said that the picture of the defendant “looked like” one of the perpetrators. She identified a man named Marquis Spence as the other perpetrator in a separate lineup. Spence was subsequently convicted and there seems to be no doubt that he was, indeed, involved in the crime.
Alvarez likewise provided a general description of the perpetrators to the police. She, too, identified Spence in a photo lineup but was unable to identify the defendant – in fact, she indicated interest in one of the fillers. However, a week or two later, she saw a photograph of the defendant online and recognized the photo as one of the perpetrators. The defendant was eventually charged with the murder.
Trial Preparation Taints Eyewitnesses' In-Court Identification, Leads to Reversal of Murder Conviction – North Carolina Criminal Law
This is an interesting blog post I came across.
The crime. The case is State v. Malone. It began when two men approached Kevette Jones on Jones’s front porch. They asked where his friend Jared Alston was, apparently because Alston had cheated them in a drug deal. Jones said he didn’t know. Dissatisfied with that response, one of the men fatally shot him.
The witnesses. Claudia Lopez and Cindy Alvarez were on Jones’s porch at the time and were eyewitnesses to the murder. Lopez provided police with a general description of the perpetrators after the shooting. She was unable to identify the defendant in a photo lineup, though she said that the picture of the defendant “looked like” one of the perpetrators. She identified a man named Marquis Spence as the other perpetrator in a separate lineup. Spence was subsequently convicted and there seems to be no doubt that he was, indeed, involved in the crime.
Alvarez likewise provided a general description of the perpetrators to the police. She, too, identified Spence in a photo lineup but was unable to identify the defendant – in fact, she indicated interest in one of the fillers. However, a week or two later, she saw a photograph of the defendant online and recognized the photo as one of the perpetrators. The defendant was eventually charged with the murder.
Trial Preparation Taints Eyewitnesses' In-Court Identification, Leads to Reversal of Murder Conviction – North Carolina Criminal Law
This is an interesting blog post I came across.
