Eyewitness Identification and Due Process
During a robbery trial, the prosecution relies on an eyewitness identification. The victim, Maria, identified the defendant, Gor, in a police lineup. However, the lineup was conducted without Gor's lawyer present, and the police told Maria that 'the suspect is in the lineup' before she viewed it. Gor's lawyer objects, arguing that the identification procedure was suggestive and violated Gor's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR and Armenian Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution argues that the identification is reliable because Maria had a clear view of the robber and identified Gor immediately. The judge admits the identification but notes the irregularities. Gor has a prior conviction for theft, which the prosecution wants to introduce to show propensity.
1. Should the court exclude the eyewitness identification? Apply the relevant legal standards.
Read the worked answer
The court should exclude the identification if it finds the procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and the identification unreliable under the totality of circumstances. Under Armenian Criminal Procedure Code and ECHR case law (e.g., Neil v. Biggers standards), suggestive lineup procedures can violate the right to a fair trial. Here, the police told Maria that the suspect was in the lineup, which is highly suggestive. Additionally, Gor's lawyer was not present, which may violate the right to counsel during critical stages. However, the presence of counsel is not always required for lineups, but the absence combined with the suggestion increases the risk of misidentification. The court must weigh: (1) Maria's opportunity to view the criminal; (2) her degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of her prior description; (4) her level of certainty; (5) the time between the crime and identification. If Maria had a clear view and gave a detailed description, the identification might still be reliable despite the suggestiveness. But the police statement that 'the suspect is in the lineup' undermines reliability. The court should hold a suppression hearing and likely exclude the identification unless the prosecution can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the identification was reliable independent of the suggestive procedure. Given the blatant suggestion, exclusion is probable.
2. Can the prosecution introduce Gor's prior theft conviction? Discuss under Armenian evidence law.
Read the worked answer
Under Armenian Criminal Procedure Code, prior convictions are generally inadmissible to prove propensity (character evidence). They may be admissible for other purposes, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. Here, the prosecution seeks to introduce the prior theft conviction to show propensity to commit robbery, which is impermissible. The court should exclude it unless the prosecution can articulate a specific non-propensity purpose. For example, if Gor claims mistaken identity, the prior conviction might be relevant to modus operandi, but that is not the case here. The prejudicial effect of the prior conviction substantially outweighs any probative value. Therefore, the court should exclude the prior conviction. The judge's instruction to the jury (if jury trial) must be to disregard it. In Armenia, criminal cases are typically tried by a judge, so the judge must not consider it. The defense should object and request a limiting instruction.