Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 44,400 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 983 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Smith v. State, 880 A. 2d 288 (2005)
Research indicates that some eyewitnesses have difficulties identifying individuals who are a different race or ethnicity, which is called cross-racial identification. May a lawyer raise the issue in closing argument even if the nature and extent of these difficulties are still uncertain? Maryland’s highest court examined this question in Smith versus State.
Christine Crandall, who was White, had just parked her car in front of her residence and was standing on the sidewalk. Two black men approached Crandall. One man pointed a gun at Crandall and told her to hand over her car keys. When Crandall didn’t comply, the other man tried to pry the keys out of Crandall’s hand. A neighbor stuck her head through a window, and Crandall shouted to the neighbor to call nine one one. The men then left.
The police showed Crandall several sets of photos. From the photos, Crandall identified Jason Mack as the man who held the gun and James Smith as the other man. Crandall’s neighbor claimed she couldn’t see the men well enough to identify them.
At trial, Crandall testified she was confident that she’d correctly identified Smith and Mack because she was very good at identifying faces. Crandall claimed that she had a habit of paying attention to people’s facial features because it was part of her job as a teacher and because she liked painting people.
Smith’s and Mack’s lawyers asked the trial court for a jury instruction about the difficulties of cross-racial identification and for permission to raise the issue in closing argument. The lawyers claimed it was common knowledge that eyewitnesses have problems correctly identifying individuals of a different race. The state argued that conflicting research on the nature and extent of cross-racial-identification difficulties meant these issues weren’t a matter of common knowledge. The trial court denied the jury-instruction request and ordered the lawyers to avoid specifically referring to problems with cross-racial identification during their closing arguments.
Smith and Mack were convicted of attempted robbery. The appellate court affirmed the convictions. The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed to review the case.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 44,400 case briefs keyed to 983 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
