Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Case Analyses Regarding Witness Identification, Search and Seizure and Entrapment
. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 9 page paper examines five questions submitted by a student related to law. Several actual cases are utilized to analyze issues pertinent to proper identification of suspects and what constitutes a proper search and seizure. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Page Count:
9 pages (~225 words per page)
File: RT13_SA638law.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
of one of the apartments. A man (the defendant in this case) opened the door and in a 5-to-7 minute period sold $20 worth of heroin to Glover. Glover had
never seen the defendant before and did not know the defendants proper name. Upon leaving the building, Trooper Glover described the man to Officer DOnofrio, who had been backing him
up outside the building. From the description, Officer DOnofrio suspected that the seller was the defendant. DOnofrio obtained a single photograph of the defendant and left the picture at Trooper
Glovers office. Two days later, Glover viewed the single picture and identified the defendant as the man who sold him the heroin. Based upon this information the defendant was arrested.
Without defense objection, the picture was used as evidence, and Trooper Glover made a positive in-court identification of the defendant. What improper procedure was used by the officers that caused
the defense lawyers to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court? Should the evidence of the in-court identification be allowed, and should the defendants conviction for selling heroin be
affirmed? Why? While Glover was working as an undercover agent he did effectively make a drug purchase and would later identify a suspect as a dealer. However, the
problem is that Glover described the suspect to an officer and was merely shown a photograph of a suspect by the officer and made the identification on that basis. Glover
did not even know the name of the suspect. The problem with this is that the identification was unfairly prejudicial. The officer had a suspect, showed the photograph to a
witness, and took that quick identification as a positive identification. Why is this wrong? In general, when identifying suspects, witnesses are shown a number of photographs or they identify
...