Manson V Brathwaite

Amanda Runyan
Professor Norris
Criminal Evidence 6
29 October 2014
Manson v Brathwaite (1970) In the case of Manson v Brathwaite in Hartford Connecticut on May 5, 1977 an African American undercover Police Officer named Jimmy D. Glover and his informant, Henry Alton Brown were assigned to purchase heroin from the apartment complex of 201 Westland from “Dickie Boy” Cicero who was a well known narcotics dealer in the area. When identified through a photograph given to Officer Glover, seen two days after the incident Cicero was arrested on July 27 while visiting Mrs. Ramsey on the third floor of 201 Westland. This was the apartment in which Officer Glover purchased the narcotics from Cicero. The suspect was charged with two counts of possession

The two traveled up the stairs to the third floor where Glover and Brown approached the door and Glover knocked awaiting an answer from Cicero. The apartment was lit by natural light and made it easy to see Cicero. The door was opened twelve to eighteen inches to where Glover observed a man standing and a women standing behind him. Brown identified himself to the man and Glover asked for the “two things” of narcotics. The man held out his hand and Glover handed him money for the narcotics. The man shut the door, when he returned with the narcotics he gave Glover two glassine bags. Within this transaction Glover was standing two feet away from the man and was able to observe his face. The time frame as when the door opened for the transaction and when the door closed the second time was about five to seven minutes (Manson v

Glover felt confident in identifying the respondent even though he has not seen the respondent in eight months. The respondent took the stand and stated that he had been ill on May 5th at his apartment. His wife testified of his illness and so did his doctor.
The photograph in this case is seen as suggestive confrontation evidence. Even though the identification was not from a photo array, the officer who is well trained and specializes in observational situations is a valid aspect to this case. This is not a situation of substantial misidentification because the trained officer was a few feet away and could visually observe the man’s features. The Per se rule keeps evidence from the jury that is reliable and relevant, as for this situation the observation during the drug transaction is relevant to the suspects arrest and reliable since the officer observed