Abstract
This article addresses what remedies should be available to a criminal defendant in Maryland who has been identified in an extrajudicial identification procedure that does not comply with the present statutory requirements. Part II of this article provides an overview of the present due process test for evaluating the admissibility of extrajudicial eyewitness identifications, the present Maryland iteration of that test, and alternatives to that approach that have been adopted in other jurisdictions. Part III reviews recent legislative reforms to extrajudicial identification procedures, which are required in Maryland as of January 1, 2016. Section IV.A of this article argues why a criminal defendant who has been identified in an extrajudicial procedure that does not comply with that legislative mandate should be afforded remedies short of suppression as a way to induce compliance with the legislative mandate and to better avoid wrongful conviction and the dire societal harms which occur when the true culprit is left free to re-offend. Section IV.B of this article provides an overview of the remedies a criminal defendant should be entitled to receive if that defendant shows that he or she was identified in an extrajudicial identification procedure that does not comply with the present statutory requirements.
Recommended Citation
DeSimone, Marc A. Jr.
(2017)
""A Middle Temperature Between the Two": Exploring Intermediate Remedies for the Failure to Comply With Maryland's Eyewitness Identification Statute,"
University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 46:
Iss.
3, Article 3.
Available at:
https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol46/iss3/3