Perry v. New Hampshire

Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause does not require a trial judge to conduct a preliminary reliability assessment of an eyewitness identification made under suggestive circumstances that were not arranged by law enforcement. The Court explained that constitutional reliability screening applies when improper police conduct creates the suggestive identification procedure, while other reliability concerns are generally addressed through counsel, cross-examination, evidentiary rules, and jury instructions.

Holdings

1. The Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement.
2. Admission of Blandón's eyewitness testimony without a preliminary judicial assessment of its reliability did not render Perry's trial fundamentally unfair.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Due Process Clause requires a trial judge to conduct a preliminary assessment of the reliability of an eyewitness identification made under suggestive circumstances that were not arranged by law enforcement.
2. Whether admission of Blandón's eyewitness identification without a preliminary judicial reliability assessment rendered Perry's trial fundamentally unfair.

Disposition

affirmed