Hiegel v. Orange Regional Med. Ctr.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that cross-examination is a tool that may be used to determine whether identification is reliable
• holding that “when a defendant testifies in support of a motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, his testimony may not thereafter be admitted against him at trial on the issue of guilt unless he makes no objection.”
• ruling defendants are protected against use of substantive evidence of their testimony offered in support of a motion to suppress evidence
• noting that suggestive identifications may not be unduly suggestive when they happen immediately following a crime because they can “spar[e] innocent suspects the ignominy of arrest by allowing eyewitnesses to exonerate them”
• adding the word “irreparable” to define the level of misidentification required to exclude out-of- court identification
• discussing limitations on suggestive identification techniques in the context of identifications by in-person eyewitnesses to a bank robbery

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).