Question

Case 13.1
Officer Mendelson responds to a robbery call at a local music store. On arrival, the store owner and five witnesses say a young man grabbed an arm full of classical records and just ran down the street. Mendelson runs out of the store and sees a young man disappear around the corner. He catches up with him and tackles him to the ground. Mendelson had seen classical records on the ground earlier, but did not see the young man holding or dropping these records. There were no other people on the street at the time, except an older woman with a cane. The police officer decides it is too much of a hassle to bring the young man down to the station for a formal lineup and decides to bring him back to the store to see if anyone can recognize him. Sure enough, the owner identifies him as the robber, as do the other five witnesses, one after another. Mendelson arrests the man and he is promptly charged with robbery.

At trial, the shop owner takes the stand and is asked whether the person sitting next to the defense attorney is the same young man who robbed his music store.
a. This question eliminates any possible constitutional violation of an improper showup by Mendelson.
b. The question is unduly suggestive and renders the courtroom identification inadmissible.
c. The prosecutor can also ask if the witness had identified the defendant as the robber before trial.
d. The witness cannot be cross examined about this identification by the defense.

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 49 characters.