The Habeas Corpus Case of Neil v. Biggers Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

Introduction

The name of the case is Neil, Warden v. Biggers and was decided on 1972

Rule

The role of law identified in the case is a habeas corpus proceeding that is brought on behalf of an individual in custody to the judgement of a state court. The judgement, a prior of the U.S. Supreme Court, on a certiorari appeal or writ certiorari in the case a prisoner of decision of a state court shall conclude every issue of the law or fact (Neil v. Biggers, n.d.). That is, relative to an asserted Federal right denial that constitutes ground for discharge in habeas corpus proceeding, actually adjudicated by the Supreme Court therein.

Fact

Bart C. Durham III, a Tennessee assistant Attorney General, argued for the petitioner and Michael Meltsner argued for the respondent. The court granted certiorari in the case to determine whether its affirmance by an equally divided court of respondent’s state conviction constituted a real adjudication. Therefore, based on 28 U.S.C § 2244 meaning, the same issues were subsequently considered on habeas corpus.

Issue

Was the use of show-up technique, as evidence to convict the respondent, justified in the rule the court held?

Answer

Yes

Conclusion

In an 5-3 decision, the final outcome of the case was No. Justice Lewis F. Powell wrote the opinion of the majority reversing and remanding. The entire court joined in first opinion part holding that affirming an actual adjudication of the issue by an equally divided court was not constituted (Neil v. Biggers, n.d.). The habeas corpus proceeding could continue; however, only five justices joined in the second part arguing that showing up procedure was suggestive. Given the totality of the situation, no substantial misidentification likelihood existed. In Justice William J. Brennan’s dissent, the show up process broke from the long-established practice of affirming fact finding concurred in by two lower courts (Neil v. Biggers, n.d.). Justices Potter Stewart and Willian O. Douglas joined in the dissent, and Justice Thurgood Marshall declined to participate.

Reference

Neil v. Biggers., & 427, U. S. (n.d.). Neil v. Biggers (1972). Web.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2023, February 20). The Habeas Corpus Case of Neil v. Biggers. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-habeas-corpus-case-of-neil-v-biggers/

Work Cited

"The Habeas Corpus Case of Neil v. Biggers." IvyPanda, 20 Feb. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/the-habeas-corpus-case-of-neil-v-biggers/.

References

IvyPanda. (2023) 'The Habeas Corpus Case of Neil v. Biggers'. 20 February.

References

IvyPanda. 2023. "The Habeas Corpus Case of Neil v. Biggers." February 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-habeas-corpus-case-of-neil-v-biggers/.

1. IvyPanda. "The Habeas Corpus Case of Neil v. Biggers." February 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-habeas-corpus-case-of-neil-v-biggers/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "The Habeas Corpus Case of Neil v. Biggers." February 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-habeas-corpus-case-of-neil-v-biggers/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
1 / 1