Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41214
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. J U A N A N T O N IO D E L G A D O , D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C R

- 398- 1
B ef ore K IN G , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * Ju an A n t on i o D el gad o app eal s hi s j u ry convi ct i on on tw o coun t s of t r ans po r t i ng an und ocum ent e d a l i e n b y m e ans o f am o t o rv e hi c l e w i t hi n t he Unit e dS t a t e s f

o rp r iv a t e f

i n a n c i a lgai n, i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S
. C. § 132 4( a) ( 1) (A) (i i) , ( a) ( 1) ( B ) (i) , an d 18 U
. S
. C
. § 2. O n app eal , D el gad o chal l en ges t he di s t r i c tcour t ’ s a dm i s s i o n o f i de nt i f i c at i o n t e s t i m o ny, a r gui ng t hatt he id e n tifi c a tio n p r o c e d u r e s (w h ic h in c lu d e dao n e -m a n s h o w u p ) w e r e u n d u ly United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 4, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-41214 Document: 00511021033 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 41214

2 sug gest ive. For t h e f ol l ow i n g reasons, w e A F F IR M t h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ct cou rt. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND O n th e n ig h t o f M a r c h 9 , 2 0 0 8 , atr a c to rtr a i l e rd r iv e n b yD e lg a d o , a U ni t e d St at e s c i t i z e n, w as s t o ppe d b y U ni t e d St at e s B o r de rP at r o lage nt s att he I nt e r s t at e 35 c he c kpo i nt ne ar Lar e do , Te xa s . Dur i ng t he i ni t i ali ns pe c t i o n o f t he t r ac t o r t r ail e r , aBor de rPat r o ldo g s i gna l e d t he po s s ibil i t y o f c o nc e al e d p e r s o ns or co n trab a n di n side the tractor tra i l er. A ft er op en i n g th e trail er, a ge n ts di scovered f

i f t een un doc u m e n te d i m m i gran t s ( al i en s) l yi n g u n der a bl u e t arp am on gstau t om obi l e parts i n thetr ail er. Th e B order Pa t rolagen t s t h en detai n ed D e lg a d o a n dth e fifte e n a lie n s . Th e Bor derPat r olage nt s i nt ervi ew ed D elgado, ob t ai ned bi ogr aphi c al i nf o r m at i o n f

r o m hi m , phot o gr ap he d hi m , and pl ac e d hi m i n aho l di ng c e l l
. The bi o gr ap hi c ali nf

o r m at i o n i ndi c at e s t hatD e l ga do i s o f a ve r ag e he i ght , a nd the Bor de rPat r o lpho t o gr ap h s ho w s t hat , o n t he ni ght o f hi s ar r e s t , D e l ga do hada m us t ac he a nd a b e ar d a nd was w e ar i ng a c ap . Del ga do a l s o pr o vi de d a st at em entt o the B or derPat r oli n w hi c h he c l ai m ed t hathe di d notknow t hat t he t r ail e rw as l o ad e d wi t h a l i e ns a nd t hathe had no r e as o n t o s us pe c ta s m uc h. T h e B o r d e rP a tr o l a g e n ts a ls o in te r v ie w e dth e a lie n s a n dd e c id e dto d e ta in t w o of t h em , si st ers E u sebi a an d L u i sa Avi l es–V en ces, as m aterialw i t n esses . B ot h provi ded st atem en t s r egard i n g h ow an d w h en t h ey h ad com e to the U n i t ed S t at e s . Euse bi a and Lui s a w e r e al s o br o ugh t s e pa r at e l y by t he Bor de r Pa t rol agen t s to vi ew D el gad o a n d asked w h et h er t h ey coul d i den t i f y h i m as t h e driver o f t he t r ac t o rt r ail e r . Lui s a i de nt i f i e d Del ga do a nd p r o vi de d i nf o r m at i o n a bo ut hi s a ppe ar anc e . E us e bi a pr o vi de d s o m e i nf o r m at i o n a bo utt he pe r s o n who p ut Case: 08-41214 Document: 00511021033 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 41214

The record indicate s that on March 9 Eu sebia was able to confirm that the man she 1 had seen bythe trailer wa s wearinga cap and had a mu stache. The record is unclear re garding whether the sisters viewed Delgado before p roviding 2 information about his appearance. D el ga d o apparentlycon sidere d the Border Patrol’ s report, which stated that b oth 3 sisters had p rovided inf ormation that Delgado was present when theywere loa ded into the trailer, to b e out-of-court identific ation evidence. One district j udge (Kaz en, J.) presided over p re-trial motion s and procedures while 4 anotherdistrict ju dge(Walter, J.) presided over the trial. 3 he ri n t he t r ail e r , butuponse e i ng D e l ga do , she w as una bl e t o s ayw he t he rhe 1
w as t hatpe r s o n. 2 Th e Go v e r n m e ntcha r ge dDe l g a d o wi t h t wo c o u n t s o f v i o l a t i n g8 U. S
. C. § 1 3 2 4 (a)( 1 )(A)(i i), ( a )( 1 )( B )(i), an d18 U
. S
. C
. § 2 inu singa m o to rv e h i cl e to tran sp ort E u s e b i aan dL u i sa , ali en s, f or co m m ercial ad va n tag e or p riva te f i n an ci algai n , w h i l e kn ow i n g, or reckl essly di sregardi n g, t h at th ey h ad com e t o, en t ered, an d rem ai n ed i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates i l l egally. B ef ore t ri al , D el gad o f

i l ed
a m ot i on t o sup press E u sebi a’ s and L u i sa’ s out- of

- court i den t i f i cat i on st at em ent s, ar gui ng t hatt he o ut
- of

- c our ti d ent i f i c at i on pr oc es s w as 3 i m per m i ss ibl y s ugges t ive and t hus conducive t o i r r epar abl e m i st ake s uch t hat anyi den t i f

i c at i o n o f

hi m b y e i t he rEus e bi a o rLui s a w o ul d v i o l at e hi s due pro c es s r i ght s. The di st r i c tc our tdeni ed t he m ot i on, butt he c our ts t at ed t hat t h e p a r t i e s c o u l de x a mi n e t h e me t h o do f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a tt r i a l , a tw h i c h t i me D el gad o coul d re- u rge hi s m ot i on t o sup press. 4 A t t ri a l , E u seb i aan dL u i sa testifie d t h a t th eir au n t ha darra n ge dto sm u gg l e th em an dthe i r bro th e rin to the U n i tedS tates a n dtran sp ort th em to A ust i n, Te x a s , f

o r$ 2 5 0 0 p e rp e r s o n. Bo t h s i s t e r s a l s o t e s t i f i e dt ha tt he yhad Case: 08-41214 Document: 00511021033 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 41214

In their statement given to the Border Patrol onM ar c h 9, 2 008 , the si sters e ach 5 claimed toh ave enteredthe United S tates on March8, 200 8. However , attrial, the sisters recanted that statement, cl aimingth atthe y ha d be en confu sed by the Border Patrol’ s que stion s whentheystated that theyh ad entered the United State s onMarch 8, 2 008
. 4 c r os se d i nt o t he U n i ted St at es vi a bo atnearLare do, Texas , on M ar c h 5, 2008, and t hatt hey t hen st ayed ata hous e i n orar ound L ar edo unt i lM ar c h 7, 2008. 5 B ot h si st er s f

urt hert es t i f

i ed t haton M ar c h 7, 2008, t he y w er e t aken by tru ck to a p a rk ed trail er. T h e si sters t estif i ed th a t th ey a n d oth er a l i en s go t i n to t he t r ail e r , w hi c h c o nt ai ne d a ut o m o bil e pa r t s , an d cover e d t he m s e lve s w i t h a bl u e t arp. E u sebi a al so t est i f i ed that sh e saw a m an st an di n g ou t si de the t rai l er w h o w a s w e a r i n ga ca p , h a dam u s ta c h e , a n dw a s “n o t s o ta ll, n o t s o s h o r t.” B ot h si st ers t est i f

i ed that, af

t er s om e t i m e, t h e t ract or pulli n g t h e t rai l er ex p erien ced m ech a n i ca lp rob l em s, a n da l lo f th e a l i en s go t ou t of th e trail er to
w ai t f or a t r uck t o t r anspo r t t hem bac k t o t he house w her e t hey w ere stay i ng. Euse bi a andLui s a t e s t i f i e d t h at w hi l e w ait i ng f o rt he t r uc k, t he y s ati n t he t r a c t o rt h a th a d b e e n p u l l i n gt h e t r a i l e r . E u s e b i a a l s o t e s t i f i e dt h a tt h e s a me m an t hats he ha d s e e n ea r l i e r— t he one w i t h a m us t ac he and c ap — w as s i t t i ng in th e d r iv e r ’ s s e a t. T h e si st ers al so t est i f i ed t h at on t h e n i gh t of M arch 9, 200 8, t h ey an d other al i ens w er e t r anspo r t ed ba c k t o t he sa m e par ked t r ai l er . E use bi a t es t i f i ed t hat
as s he w as app roa c hi ng t he t r ail e r , s he a ga i n s aw t he s am e m an, w i t h a
m u st ach e an d bea rd a n d w e a ri n g a cap, t h at s h e ha d seen on M arch 7. W h en asked i f the m an sh e h adseen w as p resent i n the courtr oom , E u sebi a i den t i f i ed D el gad o as t h e person she h ad seen . O n cross- exam i n ati on , w h en D el gad o asked
w h y E u sebi a w as u n able t o i den t i f y D el gad o or provi de m ore i n f orm ati on regardi n g h i s ap pea ran ce on M arch 9, E u sebi a t est i f i ed t h at s h e ha d been sc ared andc o nf

us e d t hatni ghtb utt hat , o n f ur t he rr e f

l e c t i o n, s he r e ali z e d t hatD e l ga do
w a s th e m a n s h e h a ds e e n o n M a r c h 7 a n d9
. Case: 08-41214 Document: 00511021033 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 41214

5 Lui s a a l s o t e s t i f

i e d t ha t , whi l e b e i ng l o a d e d i nt o t he t r a i l e r o n M ar c h 9, she saw a m an , w i t h a m u st ach e an d bea rd w h o w as w e a rin ga cap. Lu i sa f ur t he rt e s t i f

i e d t h at thi s m an t o l d he rt o r e m ai n q ui e tw hi l e s he w as i n t he t r a i l e r . Wh e n a s k e di f t h e ma n s h e h a ds e e n w a s p r e s e n ti n t h e c o u r t r o o m, L u is a a ls o id e n tifie dD e lg a d o a s th e p e r s o n s h e h a ds e e n . Bot h s i s t e r s t e s t i f

i e d t hat , a f

t e ra ga i n lyi ng do w n i n the t r ail e ra nd
c ove r i ng t hem se lves w i t h a bl ue t ar p, the y travel ed f orappr oxi m at ely 30
m i n u t es bef

ore t h e t ract or t rai l er s t opp ed. A f t er so m e tim e, i m m i grati on o ffic ia ls o p e n e dth e tr a ile ra n du n c o v e r e dth e m a n dth e o th e ra lie n s . D el gad o di d n otre- u rge hi s m ot i on t o su pp ress t h e si st ers’i den t i f i cat i on t est im o n y at t ri al ; how ever, he d i d extensivel y cros s- exam i n e both si st ers r e ga r di ng t he i nf

o r m at i o n t he y pr o vi de d t o t he Bor de rPat r o l
. At t he c l o s e o f t he si s t e r s ’t e s t i m o ny, D e l ga do m o ve d f o raj udg m e nto f

a c quit t alo n t he g r o unds t hatt he m at er i al w i t nes se s, E use bi a and Lu i sa , w er e no tc r edibl e. Spec i f i c al l y, D el gado ar gued t hatt he s i st er s’m o t iv at i on i n t es t i f yi ng f ort he G ove r nm entw as to k ee p th eir fam il y t og eth er, th a t th e si sters ha d b ee n coa ch ed i n th e ir t est i m on y, an d that t h e descri pti on s t h e si st ers h ad giv e n o f D e l gad o w ere exc ee di ngl y ge ner al i ze d. The di st r i c tc our tdeni ed t he m ot i on, s t at i ng t hat D el gado’ s ar gum ent s r ai se d c r edibi l i t y ques t i ons t hat w er e bes t l ef t f ort he j ury. T h e case w as t h ensubm i t t ed to the jury, w h i ch ret u rned a gu i l t y verdi ct on bo t h co unts of

t he i ndi c t m ent
. Th e d i stri ctc our ts ent enc ed D el gado t o 3 0
m o nt hs o f

i m pr i s o nm e nto n e ac h c o unt , t he s e nt e nc e s o n b o t h cou n t s to r un c o n c u r r e n tly
. D e lg a d o n o w a p p e a ls
. DI S CU S S I ON O n app eal , D el gad o argu es t h at t h e out- of

- court i den t i f i cat i on procedu re us e d was i m pe r m i s s ibly s ugg e s t ive a nd u nc o ns t i t ut i o nal
. Sp e c i f i c all y, D e l ga do
c hall e nge s t he m anne ri n whi c h t he s i s t e r s w e r e s ho w n D e l ga do a nd
s ubs e que nt l y que s t i o ne d a bo uthi m . Del ga do ur ge s t hatt he s ubs eque nt Case: 08-41214 Document: 00511021033 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 41214

6 id e n tific a tio n te s tim o n ys h o u ldh a v e b e e n s u p p ress ed b e c a u s e it w a s n o t r e lia b le i n l i gh tof

t h e t ot al i t y of

t h e circum st an ces. W e di sagree. I n r e vi e w i ng a m o t i o n t o s upp r e s s i de nt i f i c at i o n t e s t i m o ny, “ ‘ w e a c c e ptt he di st ri ctcourt ’ s f

i n di n gs of

factun l ess they are cl earl y erroneou s, bu tw e revi ew d e novo t he c our t ’ s ul t i m at e c onc l usi on o f t he c ons t i t ut i onal i t y o f t he l aw en forcem en t acti on . ’” Uni t e d St at e s v . Mo o dy , 564 F
. 3d 754, 762 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng Un itedS ta t es v. G u i d ry , 40 6 F
. 3 d31 4 , 31 9 ( 5 thC i r. 20 0 5 ))
. In unde r t ak i ng t hi s i nquir y, w e m ay“ c o ns i de rt he e vi de nc e a dm i t t e d a tb o t h t he
s u p p ress i on h ea ri n g a n dthe tri a l
. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 2 3 9 F. 3 d 716, 718 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 01 )
. W he t he r an i de nt i f i c at i o n i s c o ns t i t ut i o nall y ad m i s s ibl e i s a m ix e dq u e s tio n o f la w a n dfa c t. Mo o dy , 5 6 4 F .3 da t 7 6 2
.
“ T h e D u e P roces s C l au se prot ect s agai n stt h e use of evi den ce obt ai n ed from i m p e r m i ssibly su gg estive ide n tifi ca ti on pr oce d u res.” Id
. (c i t at i o n a nd i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks om i t t ed). “Th e a dm i ssibi l i t y of i den t i f i cat i on evi den ce i s go ve rn ed b y a tw o-step test.
. . . ” Id
. ( quo t i ngG u i d ry , 40 6 F
. 3 dat 31 9 ). F i rst,
w e ask w h et h er t h e i den t i f i cat i on procedu re w as i m perm i ssibl y sug gest ive. S econd , w e ask w h et h er t h e procedu re u sed poseda “very substanti all i kelih ood of irrep a ra b l e m i siden tifi ca ti on . ” Id
. ( q u oti ng G u i d ry , 4 0 6 F .3d a t 3 1 9 ). Id e n tific a tio n te s tim o n yis in a d m is s ib le o n lyif b o th q u e s tio n s a r e a n s w e r e din th e a ffir m a tiv e . Id
. The l i nc hpi n o f t he a dm i s s ibil i t y i nquir y i s w he t he rt he id e n tific a tio n is re lia b le
. Ma n so n v. B ra th w a ite , 4 3 2 U .S . 9 8 , 1 1 4 (1 9 7 7 ).

“ [ T ]he p ract i ce of

show i n g susp ect s s i n gl y t o persons f or t h e pu rpose of i d en tifi ca ti on , an dn ot as pa rt of a li n eu p , h a s be en w i d ely con d em n e d
. ” A l len v . Este lle , 5 68 F
. 2d1 108 , 1 112 (5t h C i r. 197 8) (i n t erna lpu n ct u ati on , qu ot ati on m arks, an d c i t ati on s om i t t ed). H ow ever, even i f an ou t
- of

- cour t id e n t i f i cat i on procedu re w as i m perm i s s ibly s ugg e st ive i n vi ol ati on of a defen da n t ’ s du e process r ig h ts , th e re s u ltin gid e n tific a tio n te s tim o n ym a ys til lb e a d m is s ib le if it is
r e lia b le in lig h t o f th e to ta lityo f th e cir c u m s ta n c e s . Am ado rv . Q uar t e r m an , 458 Case: 08-41214 Document: 00511021033 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 41214

7 F
. 3d 397 , 414 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)
. A n i den t i f i cat i on i s r el i able i f

t h e i den t i f

i cat i on p r o c e d u r e s d id n o t p o s e a “s u b stan ti a l l i k elih o o d o f ir r e p a r a b le
m i s i de nt i f

i c at i o n[ ; ] ” i. e . , i tm e e t s t he s e c o nd B rat h w ait e p r o n g . I d. I f we de t e r m i ne t ha ta ni d e n t if i c a t i o n m e e t s t he s e c o nd B rat h w ait e pron g, w e need not ex a m i n e w h eth er th e iden tifi ca ti on pr oce d u res sa ti sfi ed the f i rst B ra th w a ite p r o n g to d e te r m in e th a t t h e re s u ltin gid e n tific a tio n is a d m is s ib le
. Mo o dy , 564 F. 3d at762 n. 10 (ci ti ng Cole m an v . Q uar t e r m an , 456 F
. 3d 537 , 544 ( 5th C i r. 2006) )
. I n as se ss i ng w het her i dent i f i c at i on pro c edur es pos ed a subst ant i al l i ke l i ho o d o f i r r e pa r ab l e m i s i de nt i f i c at i o n, w e c o ns i de rs e ve r alfac t o r s : “ ( 1) t he opp ort u ni t y o f

t he w i t ne s s t o v i e w t he c r i m i nala tt he c r i m e s c e ne ; ( 2) t he
w i t n ess’ s deg ree of att en t i on ; ( 3) t h e accuracy of t h e w i t n ess’ s pri or descr i pti on o f t he c r i m i nal ; ( 4) t he l e ve lof cer t ai nt y de m o ns t r at e d b y t he w i t ne s s a tt he
c o nf r o nt at i o n; a nd ( 5) t he l e ngt h o f ti m e b e t w e e n t he c r i m e a nd the
con fron tati on . ” Se ei d. at762–63 ( quot i ng Cole m an , 4 5 6 F .3 da t 5 4 4 ). Th e o ut
- of

- c our ti dent i f i c at i on pro c edur es her e di d not pos e a s ubst ant i al l i kel i hood o f

ir r epa ra b l e m i si dent i f i c at i on. Fi r st , E use bi a and Lu i sahad
m u l t i p le opp ort u n i t i es, bef ore t h ey w ere s h ow n D el gad o by the B order Pa t rol ag e nt s , t o v i e w D e l ga do : The s i s t e r s t w i c e ha d t h e op portuni t y t o v i e w t he i ndivi dua l s i nvo lve d i n t he i rt r ans po r tw hi l e b e i ng l o ad e d i nt o t he t r ail e r , a nd bo t h s i s t e r s sa ti n t he t r ac t o ro n M ar c h 7 , w i t h Eus e bi a t e s t i f yi ng t hatD e l ga do
w a s a ls o p r e s e n t. F a ctor on e th ere fore w eigh s i n fa vo r of rel i a b i l i ty
. C f. A m ad or , 458 F
. 3dat 415 (fact or one w ei gh ed i n favor of reli abili t y w h ere w i t n ess h a da n op p o rtu n ityto v iew d e fen d a n t w h e n th e yro d e tog e th e r in ata x ica b ); Cole m an , 456 F
. 3dat 5 4 4 (fact or one w ei gh ed i n favor of reli abili t y w h en w i t n ess, w h o w as si t t i n g i n a car, ha d the opp ort u n i t y t o see t h e defen da n tw h en th e d e fen d a n t fire du p o n th e ca r). Se c o nd, Eus e bi a andLu i sa w ere no te nga ge d i n o t he ra c t ivit i e s dur i ng t h e i rt r a n s p o r t a t i o n , a n dt h e yc o u l dt h u s f o c u s o n t h e p e o p l e a i d i n gt h e m. Case: 08-41214 Document: 00511021033 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 41214

8 F a c to r tw o th e r e fo r e w e ig h s in fa v o ro f r e lia b ility
. Se eMo o dy , 564 F. 3d at763 (fact or tw o w e i ghe d i n fav o ro f r e l i ab i l i t y w he r e w i t ne s s w as f o c us e d o n t he
c r i m e i n q ue s t i o n a nd thatc r i m e w as t he “ pr i m ar y ac t ivit y t ak i ng pl ac e a tt he tim e ” (e m p h a s is o m itt e d )). T h i rd, t h e rec ord i s u n cl ear concerni n g w h et h er E u sebi a an d L u i sa p rov i d ed de scripti on s of D elga d o p ri or to v i ew i n g h i m . A ssu m in g(con traryto t h e G overnm en t’ s argum en t) t h at t h e si st ers di d n otprovi de d escr i pti on s of D el gad o bef

ore t h e ou t
- of

- court i den t i f i cat i on , t h e t h i rd fact or w ei gh s nei t h er f or n o ra g a in s t r e lia b ility
. Se eMo o dy , 564 F. 3d at763 (ho l di ng t hat a de fe nda nt c anno tr e l y o n t he t hi r d fac t o rw he n ther e i s “ no t e s t i m o ny” r e ga r di ng t he wi t n e s s ’ s d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e d e fe n d a n tb e f

o r e t h e o u t
- o f

- c o u r ti d e n t i f i c a t i o n )
. As such , w e assum e argu end o t h a t fact or t h ree w ei gh s nei t h er f or nor agai n st
r e lia b ilityh e r e . F ou rt h , up on bei n g show n D el gad o at t h e B o rd e r Pa t rolst ati on , L u i sa i den t i f i ed h i m , w i t h ou t reservati on . A n d thou gh E u sebi a w as un able t o conf i rm t hatD e l ga do w as t he m an s he ha d s e e n, he ri ni t i ali nab i l i t y t o i de nt i f y D e l ga do is n o t d is p o s itiv e . S ee A m ad or , 4 58 F. 3da t4 15 (ho l di ng t hats ubs e que nt id e n tific a tio n te s tim o n yco u lds till b e re lia b le e v e n w h e r e w itn e s s w a s in itia lly “re lu cta n t to id e n tify an y o n e u n til sh e w a s co n fide n t inh e rid e n tifi ca tion ”). Addi t i o n a lly , a tt r i al , ne i t he rLui s a no rEus e bi a he s i t at e d i n i de nt i f yi ng D e l ga do i n open court, an d, even af t er ext en sive cros s- exam i n ati on , both si st ers t est i f i ed consi st en t l y abou tD el gad o’ s app earan ce and t h e even t s i n qu est i on . G iven L u i s a ’ s co n fid e n c e a t t h e o u t-o f-c o u r t id e n tific a tio n , th e s is te r s ’co n fid e n c e in i d e n t i f y i n gDe l g a d o i n c o u r t , a n dt h e c o n s i s t e n c yo f t h e s i s t e r s ’t e s t i mo n y , we c o n c lu d e th a t fa c to rfo u rw e ig h s in fa v o ro f r e lia b ility
. S ee Mo o dy , 564 F
. 3d at 76 3 (f i ndi n g i n fav o ro f

r e l i ab i l i t y w he r e de s c r i pt i o n o f de fe nda ntt hr o ugh o ut e x a m in a tion w a s c o n sis te n t); A m ad or , 458 F
. 3d at 415 (u n cha n gi n g descri pti on o f s u s p e c t a t t r ia l fo u n dto w e ig h in fa v o ro f r e lia b ility). Case: 08-41214 Document: 00511021033 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 41214

9 F ifth , E u s e b iaa n dL u is a h a dth e o p p o r tu n ity to id e n tify D e lg a d o w ith in da ys of t h ei r i n i t i alopp ort u n i t y (on M a rc h 7 ) t o vi ew hi m an d w i t h i n hou rs of t h ei r s u bsequ en topp ort u n i t y (on M arch 9). F act or f ive t h eref

ore w ei gh s i n favor o f r e lia b ility
. Se eMo o dy , 564 F
. 3 d a t 7 6 3 (concl u di n g t h at an i den t i f i cat i on m a d e o n ly a d a yortw o a fterth e in cid e n t w e igh e dinfav o r o f re li a b il ity); Cole m an , 4 56 F. 3da t 54 4 ( de t e r m i ni ng t hat ni ne da y w ait be t w e e n i nc i de nta nd id e n tific a tio n w e ig h e din fa v o ro f r e lia b ility). U l t i m at e l y, a s i n B ra th w a ite : w e ca n n o t s a yth a t u n d e ra ll th e cir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is c a s e th e r e is a very sub st an t i all i kelih ood of i rreparabl e m i si den t i f i cat i on . Sh ort o f t hatpo i nt , s uc h e vi de nc e i s f o r t he j ur y t o w e i gh. W e a r e c o nt e nt t o rely u pon t h e good sen se and good j u dg m en tof A m eri can j u ri es, f or evi den ce w i t h som e elem en tof u n t rustw ort h i n ess i s c u st om ary gri st f or t h e j u ry m i l l
. Ju ri es are n ot so susceptibl e t h at t h ey can n ot m eas ure i nt el l i gentlythewe i ghto f i d e ntif i c at i on t es t i m ony t hathas s o m e q u e s tio n a b le fe a tu r e . B ra th w a ite , 4 3 2 U .S
. a t 1 1 6 ( c ita tion a n din te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). A c c o r d in g ly , w e co n c lu d e th a t th e o u t-o f-c o u r t id e n tific a tio n p r o c e d u r e s h e r e d id
n o tl e a dt o a v e r ys u b s t a n t i a ll i k e l i h o o do f i r r e p a r a b l e mi s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , a n dwe ans w e rt he s e c o nd B ra th w a itei n qu i ry i n t h e neg ative. Th u s, w e need not ex a m i n e th e first B rat h w ait e i n qu i ry— w h eth e r t h e out- of

- court i den t i f i cat i on p r o c e d u r e s w e r e u n d u lys u g g e s tiv e — to c o n c lu d e t h a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly de ni e d t he m o t i o n t o s upp r e s s t he i de nt i f i c at i o n t e s t i m o ny andpr o pe r l y l e f tt he id e n tific a tio n t e s tim o n yfo rth e ju r yto co n s id e r . A m ad or , 458 F. 3d at415; Cole m an , 4 5 6 F .3 da t 5 4 4
. CO NC L US I ON F or th e foreg oin g re a son s, w e A F F IR M th e j u d gm en t of th e d i stri ct cou rt. AF F I RMED. Case: 08-41214 Document: 00511021033 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/04/2010