United States v. Shumpert, No. 17-1168 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of bank robbery, holding that the district court did not err by failing to suppress an in-court identification. The court explained that, even if the district court erred in not conducting a reliability analysis under Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972), defendant's arguments failed because the error was not plain under current law where the courts were divided as to whether a reliability analysis was required to admit an in-court identification.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Colloton and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress an in-court identification in this bank robbery prosecution; even if the district court erred in failing to conduct a reliability analysis under Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972), the error was not plain error as the courts are divided as to whether a reliability analysis is required to admit an in-court identification.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.