New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

The scenario describes a situation where a victim has made a pre-trial identification of a defendant via a photographic array. In New York law, the admissibility of such testimony revolves around the reliability of the identification process and whether it raises concerns of suggestiveness.

The correct understanding is that if the photographic identification was conducted in a way that minimizes the risk of suggestive influences—known as a "blind procedure"—the victim's testimony regarding that identification may indeed be admissible in court. A "blind procedure" entails that the person administering the photographic array does not know which photograph is that of the suspect, reducing the chance of influencing the victim's identification.

This adherence to procedure demonstrates a commitment to fairness and the integrity of eyewitness testimony. Because the identification was not unduly suggestive, and the photograph was recognized through a proper technique, it strengthens the validity of the identification process. Thus, the victim's testimony about her prior identification is accepted in court under these conditions, aligning with the principles of fairness embedded in New York law.

In contrast, the other options address misconceptions or less favorable conditions. Option A incorrectly asserts that such testimony is never admissible, which is not the case if proper procedures are followed. Option B introduces the notion of needing