Commonwealth v. Crayton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that Adjutant rule was subsequently applied in Commonwealth v. Pring-Wilson because, in circumstances, “integrity of [the] verdict was suspect”
• noting that pretrial hearing not required where eyewitness and the defendant are known to one another
• noting that the general justification for using showup procedure “depends on the short duration of time between the crime and the showup, and will never justify an in-court showup”
• noting that the general justification for using showup procedure “depends on the short duration of time between the crime and the showup, and will never justify an in-court showup”
• noting that the general justification for using showup procedure “depends on the short duration of time between the crime and the showup, and will never justify an in-court showup”
• concluding pursuant to ‘‘[c]ommon law principles of fairness’’ that first time in-court identifications are inadmissible except for ‘‘good reason,’’ as when identity is not at issue or eyewitness knew defendant before crime [inter- nal quotation marks omitted]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).