Case Citator › Neil v. Biggers

Neil v. Biggers

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
409 U.S. 188
Decided
Confirmed treatments
5
Flagged citations read
158 of 158
Citing cases (total)
6,866
Treatment dates
2005–2017
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Neil v. Biggers has been limited; all 158 flagged citations have been read. Five adverse treatments are listed below: four courts declined to extend its identification framework to later settings, and one questioned whether the framework remains sound.
More on how this was screened

Massachusetts and Hawai‘i separately chose different identification rules under their own law, as noted below. The remaining opinions applied Biggers, reported another court's treatment, addressed a party argument, or had been withdrawn.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

6,866 later cases cite Neil v. Biggers; 158 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Neil v. Biggers?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court of Georgia confined Biggers to out-of-court identifications and required challenges to in-court identifications to be made through cross-examination.

    Hunt v. State · Supreme Court of Georgia · filed

    This Court has held, however, that Neil is irrelevant to the admissibility of in-court identifications. Challenges to in-court identifications must be made through cross-examination. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the motion.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court of South Carolina declined to extend Biggers to first-time in-court identifications and held that cross-examination and argument provide the remedy for suggestiveness in that setting.

    State v. Lewis · Supreme Court of South Carolina · filed

    We conclude, as the majority of courts have, that Neil v. Biggers does not apply to in-court identifications and that the remedy for any alleged suggestiveness of an in-court identification is cross-examination and argument. The United States Supreme Court has not extended its exclusionary rule to in-court identification procedures that are suggestive because of the trial setting.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • On federal habeas review, the Ninth Circuit held that Biggers could not support reversal where an eyewitness first identified the defendant at a pretrial hearing.

    Luckett v. Adams · Ninth Circuit · filed

    Admission of eyewitness testimony against Luckett is not reversible error because no Supreme Court case has extended the protections of Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), and its progeny to cases where the eyewitness first identifies the defendant at a pretrial hearing.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court of Kentucky declined to extend Biggers to in-court identifications and left their reliability to ordinary trial safeguards.

    John Fairley III v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · Supreme Court of Kentucky · filed

    Having considered Perry and other authorities, we decline to extend Bigq~rs to in,.court identifications.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The Supreme Court of Connecticut questioned whether Biggers's reliability framework remains sound in light of empirical studies undermining several of its factors, while reserving reconsideration for an appropriate case.

    State v. Outing · Supreme Court of Connecticut · filed

    Second, the proper use of this expert testimony calls into question the soundness of the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S. Ct. 375, 34 L. Ed. 2d 401 (1972), by which trial courts determine whether an identification can be deemed rehable despite a finding of unnecessary suggestiveness.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Neil v. Biggers and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace