California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Buggs, A145003 (Cal. App. 2017):
The procedure leading to F.J.'s identification of appellant did not violate appellant's right to due process. Sometime after F.J. falsely identified another suspect as the shooter, his own father, Fagans, showed him a picture of appellant, which F.J. recognized immediately as the shooter. Nothing in the record suggests Fagans showed F.J. the photograph at the behest of law enforcement or was otherwise acting on behalf of the prosecution. The application of the due process clause turns on the presence of state action and is not implicated when there is no improper action by police. (Perry v. New Hampshire (2012) 565 U.S. 228, 241-242.) "The due process check for reliability. . . comes into play only after the defendant establishes improper police conduct. The very purpose of the check . . .was to avoid depriving the jury of identification evidence that is reliable notwithstanding improper police conduct." (Id. at p. 241.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.