context: Under the last specific factor, the time between the shooting incident and the various pretrial identifications was in no case greater than two months, which is not enough by itself to raise serious questions about reliability.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 797 F.2d 471, 471
citation_a.parenthetical: two months from incident to identification at suggestive pretrial proceeding and five months from incident to identification at trial did not in the circumstances of the case make the identification inadmissible
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Goodman, 797 F.2d at 471 (two months from incident to identification at suggestive pretrial proceeding and five months from incident to identification at trial did not in the circumstances of the case make the identification inadmissible); cf. Biggers, 409 U.S. at 201, 93 S.Ct. at 383 (lapse of seven months between view of individual at crime and first identification of defendant did not make identification inadmissible).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 409 U.S. 201, 201
citation_b.parenthetical: lapse of seven months between view of individual at crime and first identification of defendant did not make identification inadmissible
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Goodman, 797 F.2d at 471 (two months from incident to identification at suggestive pretrial proceeding and five months from incident to identification at trial did not in the circumstances of the case make the identification inadmissible); cf. Biggers, 409 U.S. at 201, 93 S.Ct. at 383 (lapse of seven months between view of individual at crime and first identification of defendant did not make identification inadmissible).