_TOP_ Download 2023 Lineup

Our lineup features a diverse group of 150+ acts set on some of the most historic and iconic stages in the world, and music goes around the clock. Our main venue Centeroo stays open 24/7 with dance sets leading into the sunrise.

Born in 2002, early Bonnaroo lineups featured artists from the jam scene. From that stemmed a beautiful community founded on love & positivity. Those early days set the pace for what we are today and helped create a unique Bonnaroovian world.

Download 2023 Lineup

Download 🔥 https://urluso.com/2y3Ips 🔥

The Lineup tool was developed to help NCARB coordinate and organize its many architect and public member volunteers into diverse, equitable, and effective committees and task forces. Learn more about lineup.

In 1981, 22-year-old Jerry Miller was arrested and charged with robbing, kidnapping, and raping a woman. Two witnesses identified Miller, in a police lineup, as the perpetrator. The victim provided a more tentative identification at trial. Miller was convicted, served 24 years in prison, and was released on parole as a registered sex offender, requiring him to wear an electronic monitoring device at all times.

At its most basic level, a police lineup involves placing a suspect among people not suspected of committing the crime (fillers) and asking the eyewitness if he or she can identify the perpetrator. This can be done using a live lineup of people or, as more commonly done in U.S. police departments, a lineup of photographs. Live lineups typically use five or six people (a suspect plus four or five fillers) and photo lineups six or more photographs.[4]

There are two common types of lineups: simultaneous and sequential. In a simultaneous lineup (used most often in police departments around the country),[5] the eyewitness views all the people or photos at the same time. In a sequential lineup, people or photographs are presented to the witness one at a time.

Recent DNA exonerations have ignited heated debate among law enforcement officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and researchers over the best way to obtain reliable eyewitness evidence using police lineups.

Departments involved in the Illinois study experienced challenges when implementing the double-blind sequential model. Although the model was relatively easy for them to use with photo arrays, it was more difficult in live lineups, particularly in cases with multiple perpetrators. In these cases, officers often had to place more than one suspect in a lineup because they lacked enough fillers for separate lineups. Conducting sequential lineups with more than one suspect was determined to be difficult and confusing, and therefore the use of sequential lineups in multiple-perpetrator cases was discontinued.

After the Illinois Pilot Program had ended, the majority of officers who had participated said they did not think that the sequential lineup was superior; instead, they said that witnesses who can identify the offender can do so under either procedure. Officers also expressed concerns that using a blind administrator disrupts the relationship that an investigator tries to build with a witness.[21]

Committed to fostering collaboration between researchers and practitioners, NIJ recently funded the Urban Institute to test the reliability of using simultaneous versus sequential and blind versus nonblind lineups in the field. This important research will be guided by an NIJ-sponsored study group of law enforcement officials, defense attorneys, prosecutors, victim/witness advocates, and other stakeholders from across the Nation.

It is within the power of a federal grand jury to order a person suspected of crime to participate in a lineup. The lineup in such a case will be a separate investigative procedure; it will not be physically incorporated into the grand jury proceedings. United States v. Larkin, 978 F.2d 964, 968 (7th Cir. 1992); In re Melvin, 550 F.2d 674 (1st Cir. 1977).

A lineup is a well accepted investigatory procedure carried out by law enforcement officers having a suspect in custody. It is considered preferable to an individual confrontation for identification purposes. See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967); see also United States v. Funches, 84 F.3d 249, 254 (7th Cir. 1996) (showups appropriate in certain situations).

A person has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a lineup or showup undertaken "at or after initiation of adversary criminal proceedings--whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment." Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 (1977); Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972).

When there has been a lineup or showup in which the right to counsel has been improperly denied, all testimony relating to the out-of-court identification is inadmissible. See Gilbert v. California, supra; Moore v. Illinois, supra. A subsequent in-court identification will also be inadmissible unless the government can establish by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identifications were based upon observations of the suspect other than at the lineup identification. In determining whether there is an independent source for the in-court identification, the court will consider factors including the witness' opportunity to observe the criminal act, any discrepancy between a pre-lineup description and the defendant's actual appearance, any identification by picture of the defendant prior to the lineup, the failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion, the lapse of time between the criminal act and the lineup and the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the lineup. See United States v. Wade, supra. 2351a5e196