State v. McLaurin (Dissent)

Summary

The dissent would have concluded that the defendant's showup identification was impermissibly suggestive because no true exigency made a showup the only feasible identification procedure. It also would have concluded that the identification was unreliable under both federal and state due process principles because the witness was highly stressed, may have been impaired and without glasses, viewed masked perpetrators, and later lacked memory of the event. The dissent would have reversed and ordered a new trial because the identification was the only evidence identifying the defendant and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.