State v. Johnson

Summary

The concurrence agrees that due process does not regulate allegedly suggestive eyewitness-identification procedures conducted by private individuals without state participation, and that the defendant's unpreserved claim could not be resolved under the existing evidentiary rule. It would have abandoned the special judicial prescreening rule for such identifications and treated them under ordinary relevance and prejudice principles, with reliability assessed by the jury at trial. The concurrence states that the proposed change was not directly presented and therefore joins the judgment.