United States v. Earl Williams

How courts have described this case

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

• five month lapse between observation of crime and identification did not preclude in-court identification
• in-court identification by lay witness was sufficiently reliable to warrant its admission into evidence despite time lapse of two years and eight months between crime and in-court confrontation
• witness observed defendants walk down street and enter bank
• in-court identification admitted 32 months after crime

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).