In the Steve Titus case, which of the following is true? A. ...

[futuristic]

In the Steve Titus case, which of the following is true?
 
  A. Titus, the sole witness in the case, identified the attacker of his fianc.
  B. Titus was charged with a crime but the prosecution failed because there were no eyewitnesses.
  C. An innocent man had previously been convicted of a crime. The real perpetrator, Steve Titus, was found only after an eyewitness identified him.
  D. Steve Titus, an innocent man, was convicted based on a faulty lineup.

Question 2

In Gilbert v. California, 1967 and United States v Wade, 1967 the court ruled
 
  A. that the use of improper lineup procedures violated a defendant's constitutional rights.
  B. that the defendant had a right to a defense attorney during a lineup.
  C. that the lineup methods used in both cases was constitutional.
  D. that lineups must involve only one eyewitness at a time.

[zogaridan]

Answer to Question 1

D

Answer to Question 2

B

[futuristic]

Excellent

[meganmoser117]

TYSM