Neil vs Biggers Case Analysis - Essay Example

Neil v. Biggers was a case judged by the supreme court of the United States and it involved a rape case. Neil who was the plaintiff was assaulted and raped by Biggers but the police could not find the assailant as was described by Neil for around seven months. Finally, the assailant was identified by the plaintiff in a show-up (Del Carmen and Walker, 2011).

The idea of identifying the assailant through a show-up as opposed to a line up which is common brought about a lot of debate in the final ruling. It was said that the show-up was suggestive since there are no other individuals who are available to be compared with the person in the show-up. This ruling based on the show-up identification brought about the precedence of making a ruling.

The other precedence brought about by this case was because the writ for habeas corpus in such a case cannot be accepted by a federal court. This is because of the affirmance according to the U.S.C 2244 (c). This therefore means that even if the case is appealed, the judgment made by the lower courts still stands and no further action can be taken (Ingram, 2011). This was the case when Biggers appealed the ruling of the case in the Supreme Court. 

Even though Neil v. Biggers was ruled in favour of the show-up identification process even though it was done over seven months after the assault had taken place, a conflict of ideas was raised. This has led to the development of more criteria which should be considered before judging an individual based on mere identification by an eyewitness.

These criteria are proved by a psychologist employed to do so by the court. They look at several things like the time that has elapsed between the time the assault takes place and the identification process. This is meant to ensure that the memory of the plaintiff is still fresh and hence no wrong identification.

Another guideline involves the accuracy of the description made earlier. This is done to ensure that there is no discrepancy whatsoever that may lead to the wrong person being incriminated and the assailant walking free. All this is done before any ruling on the case is done and it ensures that the witness is sure of what they are reporting before the court or in front of a jury.

The other guideline criteria are an opportunity to view the assailant. This will include the physical features of the assailant like height, weight, and skin complexion among other physical traits that will make it easy to identify the individual whether in a lineup or show up. This will make it easier for the jury or judge to make a ruling without any of the parties feeling they are receiving an unjust ruling (Dimitrakopoulos, 2009).