DELGADO

v.

ISRAEL, WARDEN, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (102 total)

• Rogers v. State, 511 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1987)
  …. In cases such as this one, the courts first must ask whether the procedure in fact was suggestive and, if so, whether it resulted in a substantial risk of irreparable misidentification. Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341, 343 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981). Here, we find no suggestive procedure. In effect, Rogers argues that Supinger was able to identify him in court because of the deposition, which Rogers himself requested and conducted. Seventh, Rogers argues…
• Blanco v. State, 452 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1984)
  …taining an out-of-court identification; (2) if so, considering all the circumstances, did the suggestive procedure give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341, 343 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981). In the case of Abdeni, a show-up identification procedure was used. A show-up is inherently suggestive in that a witness is presented with only one suspect for identification, but the procedure is not invalid…
• Johnson v. State, 438 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1983)
  …d that the reliability of the identification is the most important concern and that it should be determined on the totality of the circumstances. This Court adopted the Manson two-part test in Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981): (1) did the police employ an unnecessarily suggestive procedure in obtaining an out-of-court identification; (2) if so, considering all the circumstances, did the suggestive procedure give rise to a substanti…