People v. Panighetti

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that no constitutional mandate exists for pretrial Wade hearing be held merely because counsel demands it
• holding that, although Wade hearing may be constitutionally mandated under certain circumstances, it is not mandated in all cases
• explaining that cross-examination is the “time-honored process” for testing the reliability of the identifying witness and his or her identification of the suspect
• explaining that “the identification of strangers in violent crime situations is fraught with the hazard of mistake” and collecting cases
• suggesting that a school district could not expel high school students without allowing them to “cross[- ]examine adverse witnesses”
• recognizing that prudence of hearing out of presence of jury to determine admissibility of identification evidence “has been emphasized by many decisions in the [United States] Courts of Appeals, most of which have in various ways admonished trial courts to use that procedure”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).