2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-19-2006 

# U SA v . Hight P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2792

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Hi ght " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1079. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1079H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct * C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 05- 2792

___________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , A ppel l ee,

v. STEVEN H I GH T, a /k / a STEVEN R . STATEN

S tev e n H ig h t, A ppel l ant

________________________ ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S DI S T RI CT CO UR T F OR T HE

E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge: T he H onor abl e B er l e M . Schi l l er

( C r i m i nal N o. 04- 00333- 1)

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 27, 2006 B E FO R E : A M B R O and FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and I R E N A S, D i s tr i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed: M ay19, 2006)T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s fede r al cr i m i nal cas e pur s uantt o 18 1 U . S. C . § 3231. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on overH i ght ’ s appea l of hi s convi ct i on pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. A di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o admi ti dent i fi cat i on t es t i m onyovert he defe ndant ’ s obj ect i on i s r evi ew ed forabus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed St at es v. E m anuel e, 51 F .3 d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 2 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). In c o n sid e rin g a d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f a m o tio n to supp res s, w e revi ew factual fi nd i ng s for cl ear errorand w e revi ew l egal det erm i nati on s de novo . Id . 2 _______________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________________ FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. St even H i ghtchal l enges hi s convi ct i on on char ges r el at ed t o the r obberyof a P h ilad e lp h ia r e sta u ra n t, arg u in g th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s uppr es s i dent i fi cat i ons bytw o ey ew i tnes s es of the r obbery . H i ghtcont ends thatthe i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e us ed bythe i nves t i gat i ng pol i ce of fi cer s w as undul ys ugges t i ve. W e fi nd thatthe i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e w as cons t i tut i onal , and w e ther efor e deny H ig h t’s a p p e a l. 1 I . BA CKGROUND Be c a u s e we wr i t e o n l yf o rth e p a r t i e s , o u rs u mm a ryo f th e f a c t s i s a b b r e v i a t e d . On th e e v e n in g o f

D e c e m b e r 6 , 2 0 0 3 , S tev e n H ig h t en ter e d C a rrib e a n C u isin e re sta u ra n t in P h il ad elph ia, p u rch ase d fo o d , an d left. W il li e T h o m as a n d R o h an H em m ing s w ere w or ki ng i n t he r es t aur antatthe t i m e, and Thom as r ecogni zed H i ghtas a per s on fr om t he nei ghborhood w ho had bee n i n t he r es t aur antbefor e. A bout30 m i nut es l at er , a man3

w ear i ng a hatand a s car f w r apped a r ound hi s fac e ent er ed the r es t aur ant , poi nt ed a r i fl e at T hom as and demanded money . T hom as and H emm i ngs t es t i fi ed thattheyr ecogni zed the gunm an t o be the s ame m an w ho had bee n i n the r es t aur antear l i er . T hom as gr abbed the gunm an’ s r i fl e and a s truggl e ens ued, i n w hi ch s ever al s hot s w er e fi r ed butno one w as hi t . T hom as then s t abbed the gunman i n hi s s i de, and the gunman fl ed. B oth H emm i ngs and Thom as t es t i fi ed thatthe gunman’ s s car f fe l l fr om hi s fac e s ever al t i m es dur i ng t he a lte rc a tio n , s o th a t h is f a c e w a s f u lly e x p o s e d . (A p p . 1 9 , 4 8 -4 9 .) T hom as pl ace d t w o 911 cal l s aft erthe r obbery . I n the fi r s t , he s t at ed thatthe r es t aur anthad bee n r obbed. D ur i ng the s econd c al l , the fol l ow i ng di s cus s i on of the g u n m a n to o k p lac e : Ope r a t o r : W h a td i d h e l o o k l i k e ? T h o m a s : I d o n ’t k n o w , h e h a d a m a s k o n . O per at or : W as he bl ack w hi t e H i s pani c? T h o m a s : H e w a s a b l a c k g u y. Ope r a t o r : W h a twas h e wea r i n g ? T h o m a s : H e w a s a ll b la c k . A ll b la c k . Ope r a t o r : W e a r i n g a l l b l a c k . And h e h a d wha tk i n d o f ma s k o n ? T hom as : W el l he bl ack ha ton [s i c] and l i ke s car f ar ound hi s neck [ s i c] and I s t abbed hi m i n t he s i de. (A p p . 9 3 . ) W h en the p o li ce arrived , T h o m as to ld the m that h e c o u ld ide n ti fythe ro b b er. ( A pp. 23. ) Soon aft er , the pol i ce r ece i ved a c al l r eport i ng a man w i th a guns hotw ound at a r es i dence a bl ock fr om the r es t aur ant . W hen tw o offi cer s arr i ved ther e, theyfound H i ght t endi ng t o a bl oodyw ound i n hi s s i de. H i ghtt ol d the off i cer s thathe had be en a vi ct i m of a r obbery , butthe off

i cer s s us pect ed thatH i ghtw as r es pons i bl e forthe C arr i bean Cui s i ne4

ro b b e ry. (A p p . 6 0 -6 1 .) H i ghtw as handcuf

fed a nd pl ace d i n an ambul ance out s i de the r es i dence . T he handcuf fs w er e then r emoved so thatpar amedi cs coul d t end t o H i ght . M eanw hi l e, T hom as w as t ol d t hatther e w as a r eportof a s t ab vi ct i m nearbyand thathe w oul d be t aken t o s ee i f he c oul d i dent i fythe s t ab vi ct i m as the gunman i n the r es t aur ant . W hen T h o m a s a rriv e d , the a m b u lan c e d o o r w a s o p e n e d a n d H ig h t w a s s itt in g in sid e , w ith p a ra m e d ics ten d in g to h im . A p o lice m a n w a s s tan d in g g u a rd n e a rb y . T h o m a s im m e d iate ly and w i th cert ai ntyi dent i fi ed H i ghtas the r obber . ( A pp. 63- 64. ) H emm i ngs w as then s epar at el yt aken t o s ee H i ghti n t he ambul ance and al s o i dent i fi ed H i ghti m m edi at el yas the ro b b er. ( A p p . 5 1 . ) I n J une 2004, H i ghtw as i ndi ct ed i n the East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a on fe der al char ges of H obbs A ctr obbery , us e of a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a cr i m e of v io len c e , an d b e in g a f

e lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm . B e f

o re trial, H ig h t f

iled a m o tio n to s uppr es s the i dent i fi cat i ons byT hom as and H emm i ngs on the gr ound thatthe i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e w as t oo s ugges t i ve. Fol l ow i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on i n an or al deci s i on. H i ghtpr ocee ded t o tr i al and w as found gui l tyon al l char ges . I n M ay2005, the D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d H i ghtt o 240 m o n th s in p ri s o n . I I . DI S CU S S I ON A n id e n tific a tio n p ro c e d u re v io late s a d e f e n d a n t’s rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss w h e n it i s5

“‘ unnece s s ar i l ys ugges t i ve’ and cr eat es a ‘ s ubs t ant i al r i s k of m i s i dent i fi cat i on. ’ ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v . E ma n u e l e , 5 1 F . 3 d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 2 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) . An unnece s s ar i l ys ugges t i ve pr ocedur e i s notuncons t i tut i onal “‘ s o l ong as the i dent i fi cat i on pos s es s es s uffi ci entas pect s of r el i abi l i ty , ’ forr el i abi l i tyi s the ‘ l i nchpi n i n det erm i ni ng the admi s s i bi l i tyof i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m ony . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng M ans on v. B r athw ai t e, 432 U . S. 98, 106, 114 ( 1977) ) . R el i abi l i tyof an i dent i fi cat i on i s cons i der ed undera t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s t es t , E m anuel e, 51 F. 3d at1128, and r el evantfac t or s i ncl ude the opportuni tyof the w i tnes s t o vi ew the cr i m i nal atthe t i m e of the cr i m e, the w i tnes s ’ degr ee of

att ent i on, the ac cur acyof the w i tnes s ’ pr i or des cr i pt i on of the cr i m i nal , the l evel of ce r t ai ntydemonstr at ed bythe w i tnes s atthe conf

r ont at i on, and the l ength of t i m e betw een the cr i m e and the conf r ont at i on. N ei l v. B i gger s , 409 U . S. 188, 199- 200 ( 1972) ; s ee a l s o B r athw ai t e, 432 U . S. at114. T he bur den i s on the def

endantt o demonstr at e thatan i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e w as u n co n sti tuti o n all ysu g g esti v e. U n it ed S tat es v . L aw ren ce , 3 4 9 F . 3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In d eterm ining w h ethe r an iden ti fica ti o n p roc ed u re v iolated d u e p roc ess, a c o u rt sh o u ld n o t tak e in to a c c o u n t in d e p e n d e n t ev id e n c e o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s c u lp a b ili ty ; o n ly thos e fa ct or s r el at ed t o t he r el i abi l i tyof the i dent i fi cat i on i t s el f s houl d be cons i der ed. E m anuel e, 51 F. 3d at1128. H er e, H i ghtcl ai m s thatthe i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e thatl ed t o hi s i dent i fi cat i on by T h o m a s a n d H e m m in g s w a s u n n e c e ss a rilysu g g e stiv e . T h e w itn e ss e s w e re sh o w n o n ly H i ght , w i thoutot herpos s i bl e s us pect s t o choos e fr om . A pol i ce of fi cerw as s t andi ng6

g u ard d u ri n g the id en ti fica ti o n s an d itw as c lear tha t H igh t w as b eing tend ed to f o r a w ound i n hi s s i de. T he w i tnes s es w er e s peci fi cal l yas ked w hetherH i ghtw as the gunman in th e re sta u ra n t. T h e se f a c to rs p ro b a b lyc re a ted a n u n n e c e ss a rysu g g e stiv e n e ss o f g u ilt . See Em anuel e, 51 F. 3d at1129- 30 ( concl udi ng thata conf r ont at i on l eadi ng t o an i dent i fi cat i on w as unnece s s ar i l ys ugges t i ve w her e the def endantw as w al ked pas tthe iden ti fy ing w itn esse s in sh ac k les, w ith a U n it ed S tat es M arsh all o n ea ch side ). U nderthe t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s t es t , how ever , H i ghtcannotes t abl i s h a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of m i s i dent i fi cat i on i n thi s cas e. A ccor di ng t o the t es t i m onyof Thom as and H emm i ngs , theyhad ampl e opportuni tyt o obs erve the gunman w hi l e he w as i n the re sta u ra n t b e c a u se h is s c a rf f e ll fro m h is f

a c e . B o th w itn e ss e s w e re in c lo se c o n tac t w ith the gunman dur i ng the r obbery , and theyi dent i fi ed H i ghtw i thouthes i t at i on w hen they s aw hi m i n t he ambul ance . M or eover , T hom as t es t i fi ed thathe had s een H i ghti n the r es t aur antbefor e and w as fami l i arw i th how H i ghtl ooked. T he r el i abi l i tyof the iden ti fica ti o n s is also b o lst ere d b ythe s h o rtn ess o f th e ti m e p eriod b etw ee n the ro b b ery a n d th e id e n tific a tio n s. O n e e lem e n t th a t sh e d s s o m e d o u b t o n th e id e n tific a tio n s is T hom as ’ fai l ur e t o des cr i be the gunman t o the 911 oper at or , ort o t el l the oper at orthathe h ad see n the g u n m an in the restau ran t prev iou sly . T h o m as testi fied at th e e v iden ti ary h e a rin g th a t th is la p se w a s d u e to h is a n x ietya t th e tim e o f th e c a lls. (A p p . 2 7 .) T h is expl anat i on i s notunr eas onabl e, and gi ven the others tr ong i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i tyof the id e n tific a tio n s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re w a s n o su b sta n tial risk o f m isid e n tific a tio n in th is7

cas e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tther efor e di d noterri n deny i ng H i ght ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s , and H ig h t’ s a p p e a l o n th is b a s is is d e n ie d .