State v. Lawson/James

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that witnesses’ identifications were proper because they were based on prior untainted observations and not the result of a later unduly suggestive procedure
• holding that witnesses’ identifications were proper because they were based on prior untainted observations and not the result of a later unduly suggestive procedure
• explaining that OEC 403 and other evidence code provisions “articulate minimum standards of reliability intended to apply to many types of evidence”
• explaining that one source of memory contamina- tion is the way in which witnesses may “converse about an event”
• nothing that the persuasive force, or probative value, of eyewitness identi- fication testimony is directly linked to its reliability
• noting that in the context of a due process challenge, it is the challenging party who “generally bears the initial burden of proof”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).