Simultaneous Review of Photos of Suspect not Suggestive

Viewing suspect photos simultaneously, rather than in succession, is not unduly suggestive and does not violate the due process rights of the defendant

Commonwealth v. Thomas, 2017 BL 42301, Mass., No. SJC-12055, 2/13/17.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has backed away from an earlier ruling that suggested that photo line-ups for suspect identification should be shown in succession, rather finding that simultaneously showing a collection of photos is not unduly suggestive. In the recent decision, the court pointed towards new studies that indicate that sequentially showing photographs to witnesses for suspect identification were not only more likely to incorrectly choose the suspect, but that they were more likely to choose a completely innocent person. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion to suppress the photo identification evidence.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Commonwealth_v_Thomas_No_SJC12055_2017_BL_42301_Mass_Feb_13_2017_?1487267028

Automatic Standing Rule Allowing Suppression of Evidence Limited for Multiple Charges

A defendant cannot use the state’s automatic standing rule to suppress evidence for one charge where the evidence was not an essential element, even if it can be used in a different charge

Commonwealth v. Miller, 2016 BL 266206, Mass, SJC-10640, 8/17/16.

   The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state’s automatic standing for defendants in suppressing evidence seized on someone else’s property does not extend equally across multiple charges. In the case, a murder suspect was not able to suppress evidence gathered from someone else’s property in relation to his murder charge because the evidence was not essential to the elements of the crime. The same evidence, however, was suppressible in an unlawful possession of a large capacity weapon charge because it was relevant to the charge.

   The court held, “Standing to contest a search is gauged by looking at the individual charges and evaluating whether the items taken were essential to prosecution of the charge.” Although the rule was properly used by the defendant for his unlawful possession charge, the evidence was not essential to the murder charge, thereby not requiring suppression.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Commonwealth_v_Miller_475_Mass_212_2016_Court_Opinion.