Eyewitness Identification Procedures in Georgia

When a criminal case relies on a witness identifying a suspect, Georgia courts apply a specific due process framework to decide whether that identification can be used at trial. This framework, built on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, governs lineups, photo arrays, and show-up identifications, and Georgia has added its own statutory layer requiring agencies to adopt written identification policies.

The Two-Prong Due Process Test

Georgia courts evaluate challenged eyewitness identifications using a two-step analysis drawn from Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972), and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977). The first question is whether the identification procedure used by law enforcement was impermissibly suggestive. If the answer is no, the inquiry ends and the identification is admissible. If the procedure was impermissibly suggestive, the court moves to a second question: whether, despite the suggestiveness, the identification is nonetheless reliable enough that there is no very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.

The Five Biggers Reliability Factors

When a court reaches the reliability stage of the analysis, Neil v. Biggers identifies five factors used to evaluate the trustworthiness of the identification. These are the witness’s opportunity to view the perpetrator at the time of the crime, the witness’s degree of attention during that observation, the accuracy of any description the witness gave before the identification procedure, the level of certainty the witness demonstrated at the time of the confrontation, and the length of time that elapsed between the crime and the identification. No single factor controls; courts weigh them together.

Manson v. Brathwaite’s Refinement

Manson v. Brathwaite confirmed that this reliability analysis applies even when the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, rather than automatically excluding any identification that resulted from a suggestive procedure. The decision directs courts to weigh the corrupting effect of the suggestive procedure against the indicators of reliability found in the Biggers factors, evaluating the totality of the circumstances rather than applying an automatic exclusion rule.

Georgia’s Statutory Layer: Written Lineup Policies

Beyond the constitutional due process test, Georgia law adds a state-specific requirement. O.C.G.A. § 17-20-2 requires law enforcement agencies to adopt written policies governing how lineups and show-ups are conducted. This statutory requirement exists independently of the constitutional suppression analysis, adding a procedural layer beyond the federal due process floor.

Show-Up Identifications

A show-up, in which a single suspect is presented to a witness rather than being placed among several other individuals in a lineup or photo array, is inherently more suggestive than a traditional lineup procedure. Georgia courts do not treat show-ups as automatically inadmissible, however. Instead, courts examine whether the show-up was conducted in a reasonable manner and whether it occurred reasonably close in time to the offense, applying the same two-prong framework used for any other identification procedure.

Admissibility as the Default

Both pre-trial identifications and in-court identifications made during testimony are generally admissible unless a defendant satisfies both prongs of the due process test described above. The defendant bears the burden of establishing that the procedure used was impermissibly suggestive and that the resulting identification fails the reliability analysis. This structure means that an identification procedure is not automatically excluded simply because a particular technique, such as a show-up, carries inherent suggestiveness; the full two-step analysis must be completed.

A Procedural Standard, Not a Memory-Science Inquiry

This body of law addresses the procedure used to obtain an identification and the legal standard for excluding identifications obtained through impermissibly suggestive means. It is a distinct inquiry from questions about the general reliability of human memory or perception, which arise in a different context involving expert testimony on eyewitness memory.

This article provides general information about Georgia law and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Georgia attorney about a specific situation.