This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Evidence against D consisted of one in court identification of him as the gunman by an eyewitness who at a lineup several days after the shooting had identified a codefendant as the gunman. The victim and five other witnesses at the shooting were unwilling or unable to identify D in court. Statements elicited from some of the witnesses at trial suggested that their testimony might have been influenced by fears of reprisals. A police officer was called to the stand to testify that two of the witnesses made pretrial identifications of D. D objected and was overruled. Ciambelli, one of the witnesses also identified D as the gunman in Grand Jury testimony but failed to identify him in court. After reading from the Grand Jury transcript, Ciambelli told the court that he did not know Daye, that he had never seen him, and that that was just a name that was going around. Ciambelli stated that he did not see Daye in the courtroom. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.