45. For example, a state court could check whether “sufficient independent evidence of the defendant’s guilt existed to support the reliability of the identification.” Id. at 47. In short, “where the circumstances of either a pretrial or an at-tri o such remedy was needed here because there had been no previous identifications by these witnesses while at the police lineup. In addition, trial counsel had the opportunity to address the reliability of the in-court identifications during the course of the trial, presumably through cross-examination. (Id.) See N.Y. CLS CPL § 710.30 (requiring notice to defendant of prosecution’s intent to offer identification by a witness who made a pretrial identification); People v. Trottie, 167 A.D.2d 438, 561 N.Y.S.2d 841, 842 (App. Div.2d Dep’t 1990) (<HOLDING>). Despite that the witnesses in question did
holding that outofcourt statements by witnesses that are testimonial in nature are barred under the confrontation clause unless witnesses are unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine them holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that district court could admit evidence under 404b that defendant in insurance fraud case had threatened and abused witnesses in order to explain why witnesses initially told investigators defendant was not involved holding that the right to crossexamine adverse witnesses applies to capital sentencing hearings holding it was not error to admit incourt identifications for the first time without notice to defendant since witnesses had not made pretrial identifications and counsel had the opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses