United States v. Raphael Nunn
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The Eighth Circuit affirmed Raphael Raymond Nunn’s convictions for kidnapping, bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft, as well as his 288-month above-Guidelines sentence. The court held that Nunn’s ambiguous statement, “I think I should get a lawyer, dude,” did not clearly invoke his Miranda right to counsel, that allowing a spontaneous in-court identification was not plainly erroneous, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward variance.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether, after Perry v. New Hampshire, courts must apply the two-step reliability analysis from Neil v. Biggers to admit an in-court identification.
Circuit Positions
Reliability analysis is required for in-court identifications to satisfy due process.
Issue remains unsettled; court assumes without deciding that the reliability analysis applies.
Conflict Summary
Some circuits hold that the due-process ‘reliability analysis’ remains necessary before admitting any in-court identification, while other circuits (including the Eighth Circuit) have not resolved the question and, at most, assume arguendo that the analysis applies without deciding.