Task: songer_genresp1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
Your task is to determine the nature of the first listed respondent.

FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge:
Robert P. Marchand, Jr. appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial before Chief Judge Holden in the District Court for Vermont, on one count of an indictment charging the possession and distribution of 180 pounds of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841.
Apart from a serious question under the Fourth Amendment discussed in Part IV below, the appeal has been presented as if this were a case where there is substantial doubt that defendant is the person who committed the crime charged in the indictment. Marchand relies on an array of cases, somewhat weakened as a result of recent Supreme Court decisions, which had laid down stringent requirements to prevent “the awful risks of misidentification” by persons with relatively scant opportunity to observe the defendant, Brathwaite v. Manson, 527 F.2d 363 (2 Cir. 1975), rev’d, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). But, as the trial judge and the jury seem to have been well aware, that is not this case at all. The case is rather one of accomplice witnesses, one of whom had known the marijuana supplier for years. The jury could well have inferred that any difficulty these witnesses expressed about identification was due to unwillingness rather than inability to identify. It was a similar case of seeming unwillingness that led us, in United States v. De Sisto, 329 F.2d 929 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 979, 84 S.Ct. 1885, 12 L.Ed.2d 747 (1964), to rule that previous identification or grand jury testimony of a trial witness could be used not simply for “impeachment” but as substantive evidence — a ruling which Congress has now translated into Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) and (C). None of this means that Marchand did not have the right, accorded every criminal defendant, to a fair trial in accordance with governing rules of law. It does mean that statements in decisions involving dubious identifications by bystanders, law enforcement officers or victims should not be woodenly applied to the wholly different situation here and that the case offers ample occasion for recalling Judge Learned Hand’s observation in Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F.2d 265, 269 (2 Cir. 1952), that a jury is free, on the basis of a witness’ demeanor, to “assume the truth of what he denies” although a court cannot allow a civil action, much less a criminal prosecution, to go to the jury on the basis of this alone.
I. A Chronological Summary
Marchand challenges his conviction on the grounds both of trial error and of insufficiency of the evidence properly admitted. Before considering these challenges it will be useful to summarize what admittedly occurred. When we include material that was not before the trial jury, we will so indicate.
Sometime before June 1971, Victor Roy, Jr. became acquainted with a man at bars in Amherst, Mass. When testifying before the grand jury, Roy identified this person as “Big Foot” or,“Bob”; at trial he insisted on the appellation “Big Foot”. In March or April, 1975, Roy met the same individual, again in a bar in Brattleboro, Vermont; he was with a girl whom Roy identified before the grand jury as Ann. The man gave Roy a telephone number, which Roy called occasionally. In May 1975, Roy, accompanied by Richard Perkins, met the individual at a Howard Johnson’s restaurant in Springfield, Mass., to discuss the purchase of marijuana. On two occasions within the following three weeks, Roy and Perkins made purchases of marijuana from Big Foot at the Springfield Howard Johnson’s.
During the period June 9-July 16, 1975, there were four one minute phone calls from Perkins’ number in Waitsfield, Vt., to the numbers listed in the name of Ann Curtis and Robert Marchand in Guilford, which is near Brattleboro, Vermont; there was proof that Bob Marchand was living with Ann Curtis at the time. On July 17 there was a four minute phone call from Perkins’ number to Marchand’s. The next day, July 18, Perkins and Roy drove to Brattleboro, waited for a while at the Howard Johnson’s restaurant there, met Big Foot and another male, and then drove out into the country, where 180 pounds of marijuana were transferred from Big Foot’s car to Perkins’. On this date there were three phone calls to Ann Curtis’ number in Guilford which were billed to Perkins’ number in Waitsfield. The first, from Perkins’ home phone, lasted three minutes. The other two — each lasting not over one minute — were from Brattleboro, where Perkins and Roy met Big Foot for the marijuana transaction. Perkins and Roy were arrested later in the day when they tried to sell the marijuana to an undercover agent.
Roy refused to make any statement to the arresting officer, Agent Handoga of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Within two weeks after the arrest, Perkins gave Agent Handoga a description of the seller as “a six foot one, 220 pound man with blond hair”, aged between 25 and 30, and “big features”, defined to include “a big nose, big hands, broad shoulders”. About a month later, Perkins who had some ability as a portraitist, drew a sketch which was designed to be a picture of the marijuana supplier.
Agent Handoga testified at the suppression hearing later referred to that in August 1975 he had received information from an undisclosed source that Marchand was the supplier. Accordingly the Government sought an indictment of Marchand.
In September 1975 Perkins testified before a grand jury. He stated that “he found out [Big Foot’s] name was Bob Marc-hand,” Roy did not appear before this grand jury and it was discharged before the investigation was complete, without the filing of an indictment against Marchand.
On April 26, 1976 Perkins was shown fifteen photographs by Agent Handoga and was asked to pick two that most closely resembled the people he had seen at the time of the marijuana transaction. He first picked three and later narrowed his choices to two. One was a photo of Marchand. Perkins testified at the suppression hearing that he did not feel he was being encouraged or pressured to select the photograph that he did but was not certain that the individual depicted was the supplier. Roy, according to his testimony at the suppression hearing, was in Colorado during this period. On his return to Vermont he was served with a subpoena to appear before the grand jury. Immediately before his appearance on July 1, 1976, Roy arrived at the office of the United States Attorney in Burlington and went to a small interview room accompanied by Agent Handoga and Assistant United States Attorney O’Neill. Roy informed the agent that he had received the marijuana from someone named “Bob” or “Big Foot”. Agent Handoga showed Roy a series of 14 photographs. On his first and second viewings he selected a photograph of someone he thought to be Jim Hathaway of Burlington; he was told he was in error. On a third viewing Roy selected a photograph of Marchand but added “this picture looks funny.” The agent then produced a larger photograph of Marc-hand, interjecting “Oh, here’s a Bob, what about this one?” Roy responded that the larger photograph “looks similar”. The agent then said “Ah, that’s Marchand.”
In the afternoon Roy testified before the grand jury. We have already covered much of this testimony. Important additions were a statement that he had known the person with whom he and Perkins had communicated in order to buy the marijuana as “Bob” and a confirmation that he had selected the photograph of the person he believed to be Big Foot. After hearing Agent Handoga present his own observations and Perkins’ testimony before the earlier grand jury, the second grand jury returned an indictment against Marchand on July 22, 1976. An arrest warrant issued on the same day.
In the interval between Roy’s appearance and the indictment, Timothy S. Hillman, a Massachusetts assistant district attorney who was to be called as a defense witness at trial for a reason that will later appear, came to Vermont. Marchand was a “civil client”. Hillman had had “occasion to hear that photographs of [his]... client had been shown to the Grand Jury” in Vermont. After talking with Roy, Hill-man received “the impression that Victor had spoken to some people about an incident involving himself and some marijuana and that during the conversation he had had [sic] that Bob had been mentioned and the whole thing involved some sort of a transaction at the University of Massachusetts.” He had also received information that before testifying before the grand jury Roy had been shown pictures of Marchand and possibly of Ann. Hillman got “the impression.. that the whole transaction went down at the U. Mass. Bar but whether or not the transaction went down with Bob or that is what he told him. I don’t know....” He communicated all this to Marchand, who asked what he should do; Hillman gave Marchand directions how to get to Roy’s house and “told him to get himself a darned good criminal lawyer and to get investigators sent up right away, because I believed that he was in trouble.”
Some time after this, Marchand departed for the Miami area in Florida. Apparently the Government knew that he had, for it sent a photograph of Marchand to the Dade County, Florida, police and Agent Handoga spoke on the telephone to Detective Adcock of the Dade County police about Marchand.
This led to the final episode. At 7:30 a. m. on August 24, 1976, Special Agent Harris of the DEA office in Miami, accompanied by DEA Special Agent McGlassius and two Dade County detectives, Adcock and Sadler, went to the apartment of Robert Higgins in Lauderhill, Florida, to arrest Higgins pursuant to a federal arrest warrant on charges of sale and distribution of marijuana and conspiracy to import marijuana. The group was joined by a uniformed Lauderhill police officer outside the apartment, which had been under surveillance. Higgins answered the door and was placed under arrest. He informed the officers that another person was in one of the bedrooms. Marchand emerged, wearing only a pair of pants. Agent Harris asked one or more of the officers to ascertain his identity and make sure he was not armed. Marchand was allowed to return to his bedroom to don a shirt and was told that, although not under arrest, he could not leave the apartment but should remain seated in the dining room. Meanwhile Agent Harris had gone with Higgins to the latter’s bedroom to watch him dress. While Harris was there, Detective Adcock advised him that Marchand was a fugitive from the District of Vermont. This conclusion was based on previous telephone conversations with Agent Handoga, prior observations of a photograph that had been sent to Miami, and inspection of a driver’s license she had extracted from a wallet lying on the apartment’s dining room table. Agent Harris further verified Marchand’s identity by calling Agent Handoga in Vermont and then made the arrest. In the course of the arrest, Harris searched Marchand and removed a small address book and various papers and written notes from a rear pants pocket. One of the notes related to Marc-hand’s conversation with Hillman; we reproduce this in the margin.
II. The Suppression Motion
Marchand moved to suppress the photographic identification by Perkins and Roy and the note seized at the time of his arrest. Chief Judge Holden conducted a hearing and made findings of fact, on which we have relied in the previous section, and conclusions of law.
The court denied the motion to suppress Perkins’ photographic identification, overruling objections that the array included bearded individuals, some with long hair, whereas the person outlined in Perkins’ sketch was clean-shaven with short hair, that the array included two photographs of Marchand, and that Marchand’s was one of only two large photographs in the array.
With respect to Roy’s identification, the judge found that Roy had made no positive identification of Marchand and also that his identification, “such as it was” was “infected by suggestion.” Accordingly he granted the motion to suppress the evidence.
The judge also denied the motion to suppress the note seized on Marchand’s arrest. Since we agree with his conclusion but not with his reasons, it is unnecessary to set out the latter.
III. The Trial
Perkins and Roy both testified to the marijuana transaction substantially as set forth in Part I of this opinion. Since there is no dispute that the transaction occurred, there is no need to repeat this.
Perkins testified to having given Agent Handoga the description of “Big Foot” set forth in Part I and supplemented this with a consistent description of the supplier as looking “very large. Very healthy. Very short hair, like a football player would look after he had been working out. [and dressed in] shorts or casual pants and T shirt” and tanned and unbearded. Over objection the Government introduced the sketch Perkins had drawn. Although testifying that he had been “trying to draw a picture of the person who gave [him] the marijuana,” cross-examination elicited a statement that he had testified at the suppression hearing “when I was drawing it I didn’t really feel that it was anything,” and further
In my mind, I, when I was sketching it I just sat there for the longest time and didn’t really know what to draw and that was just a — I just remember he was a great big, blond-haired guy and he just had big features. And I just drew a big-blond-haired, you know, male features.
He also acknowledged his earlier statement that he “didn’t have a terribly good memory of [Big Foot] at the time he made the sketch” and said that when he was drawing it he “just [sat] there with a blank and just like I just drew it” and that when he finished it he was not satisfied that it was a fair and accurate picture of Big Foot. The jury was not bound, as counsel seems to believe, to credit Perkins’ disclaimer as against the excellence of his sketch; indeed it could have drawn quite a different inference. Comparison of the sketch with the photograph later selected by Perkins makes it almost impossible to suppose that Perkins had never seen the subject of the photograph.
When asked to make an in-court identification, Perkins was unable to do this, perhaps for the reasons indicated in fn. 12, perhaps for others. He testified that two by-standers and Marchand who stood before him “resemble Bob, Big Foot in some way”; he thought there was “a good possibility” that if Big Foot were standing in front of him, he would be able to make an identification. The jury may have been more impressed by his slip of the tongue shortly thereafter when he was being cross-examined in regard to the sketch (App. p. 333):
Q. Now at the time you made it, you didn’t have a very clear vision in your mind of what this Big Foot looked like, did you?
A. I never really did, except now when he was standing in front of me and it was always a fairly nervous type of arrangement. (Emphasis supplied.)
We do not see how this can mean anything else than that the man “standing in front of” Perkins, namely, the defendant Marc-hand, was Big Foot.
Perkins admitted making the photographic identification but defense counsel brought out that the pictures were selected as being “closest” to his recollection and that he had made no positive identification. The court refused to give an instruction precluding the jury from relying on Perkins’ photographic identification as substantive evidence of Marchand’s guilt.
The prosecutor also asked Perkins if he could remember Big Foot’s phone number. When he could not, she gave Perkins the toll records for his phone for June and July 1975 to refresh his recollection. Perkins chose the number subsequently proved to be that of Ann Curtis and Bob Marchand, stating, “this could be it,” though he added on cross-examination that he could not be certain this was Big Foot’s number.
The prosecutor called Roy in an effort to secure an in-court identification. Roy didn’t see Big Foot in the courtroom although “there’s probably a number of people here that might look vaguely like him.” On cross-examination Roy picked out four people, including Marchand, all of whom “looked like this Big Foot” but added that Marchand “is not him.” The prosecutor referred to Roy’s grand jury testimony where he had named Marchand as the supplier. Instead of reading this, she proceeded, without objection as follows:
Q. And were you telling the truth to the Grand Jury that day?
A. Well, as I said before, I was misleading the Grand Jury to believe, influences,—
Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Roy, that you led the Grand Jury to think that you could identify Robert MARCHAND as the person who supplied you with the marijuana?
A. I guess that is what it came down to.
Q. And is that true, Mr. Roy?
A. Is it true that I misled the Grand Jury to believe that—
Q. Is it true that that is what you did, yes.
A. I would say, yes.
After acknowledging that the defendant was a friend, Roy was further questioned along the same lines:
Q. And yet you led a Grand Jury to believe that this person — this friend of yours, was the one who supplied you with marijuana, is that right?
A. Yes, that’s what it came out to be.
The prosecutor also questioned Roy about who had accompanied Big Foot when Roy resumed acquaintance with him at a Brattleboro bar. Roy first answered “a girl. I really don’t know [her name] but it could have been ANN.” When pressed about his somewhat more positive testimony before the grand jury, he couldn’t recall whether Big Foot was with a girl, and admitted that he had misled the grand jury. More questioning added to the confusion: Roy had indeed seen Marchand with Ann and knew that they were friends and probably were living in the same house. This led to the following exchange:
Q. Do you recall that you testified in the grand jury that you saw Bob or Big Foot your supplier, with Ann?
A. That is the way the grand jury testimony reads.
Q. And is that the same Ann you know as a friend or companion of Mr. Marchand?
******
A. The Ann that I was referring to in there was.
Q. It was the same one?
A. (Nodding)
On cross-examination, Roy stated if there was a girl with Big Foot, he had never seen her with Marchand.
Agent Handoga testified with respect to Perkins’ photographic identification. He said that Perkins had been asked to identify the two persons who had sold the marijuana, not the two photos that looked “most like” them.
The Government concluded its case with the testimony of Agent Harris as to the note seized from Marchand at the time of his arrest. The defense case was limited to the testimony of Hillman seeking to explain this.
We shall defer to Part IV of this opinion a description of the prosecutor’s summation and the charge and of defendant’s points about them.
After returning to the courtroom with a request to hear Roy's testimony, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty.
IV. The Refusal to Suppress the Note Seized on Marchand’s Arrest
We shall deal first with Marchand’s claim that seizure from his person at the time of his arrest of the note relating to Hillman’s meeting with Roy violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment since this issue is separable and, if defendant were right, a new trial would be required. If Marchand’s arrest was legal, the search of his pants was likewise so. As said in United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467, 477, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973):
A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification. It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a “reasonable” search under that Amendment.
However, counsel stoutly contends that the arrest was illegal since it was based on the driver’s license which Detective Adcock had obtained in the course of an unlawful search of the wallet that Marchand had left on Higgins’ dining room table.
If the arrest stemmed solely from the discovery of Marchand’s name on the driver’s license, we would be constrained to agree, particularly in light of the decision in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977), rendered after this case was argued. But it did not. The trial court found that “Detective Adcock recognized the defendant from having seen his photograph” and that “She also recognized the defendant’s name” which she apparently had obtained from the driver’s license.
A preliminary point should be cleared up before we proceed further. In a letter submitted after the argument, defense counsel raised the claim that the photograph to. which the trial judge referred was on the driver’s license. The finding is not worded that way and the testimony of Agent Harris was that Detective Adcock “stated she had seen a picture of this person before. (emphasis supplied). Further, there was no evidence that there was a picture on Marchand’s driver’s license. However, there was evidence, already mentioned, that a photograph had been sent to Detective Adcock, “a specially trained, assigned and experienced officer,” Manson v. Brathwaite, supra, 432 U.S. at 115, 97 S.Ct. at 2253, and the judge permissibly found that she had seen this before the visit to Higgins’ apartment.
We have no doubt that the photograph constituted probable cause for arrest without the reinforcement afforded by the discovery of Marchand’s name. Here there was no need for the arresting officers to determine whether there was probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that a particular individual had committed it; that role had been performed by the indictment, Sciortino v. Zampa no, 385 F.2d 132 (2 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 906, 88 S.Ct. 820, 19 L.Ed.2d 872 (1968). All that was required was probable cause to believe that the defendant was the subject of the Vermont indictment. Recognition of a photograph sent by the law enforcement officers from Vermont, supplemented by the discovery of the defendant living in the home of- a Florida marijuana dealer, afforded such cause.
We thus face the question whether an arrest that would have been legal if effected on these bases alone became illegal because Detective Adcock improperly extracted Marchand’s driver’s license from the wallet lying on the dining room table, thereby learning his name and gaining added assurance. While we have found no federal authority squarely on this, we see no significant distinction between the question here presented and that arising where both legally and illegally obtained evidence have been offered to obtain a search warrant. The validity of the warrant was upheld under such circumstances in the leading case of James v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 314, 418 F.2d 1150 (1969). There an officer responded to a report that several men were engaged in mechanical work on a car parked in a public street. When the officer arrived on the scene, he saw the men at work on one of two cars in the street and a third car in a garage, though a man in the garage shut the door quickly on perceiving the officer. When the officer returned four days later, the garage door was open. The new car he had seen there was almost completely stripped. The officer entered the garage and copied down the rear license plate number. A check revealed that the vehicle was stolen, and a search warrant for the garage was obtained. Judge Leventhal found that the action of the man in closing the garage door quickly upon the officer’s first visit, and the officer’s subsequent observation of a new car completely stripped — valid under the plain view doctrine — provided probable cause for a search of the garage irrespective of the further information gathered during the officer’s illegal entry. The court then stated:
When an affidavit in support of a search warrant contains information which is in part unlawfully obtained, the validity of a warrant and search depends on whether the untainted information, considered by itself, establishes probable cause for the warrant to issue. Wong Sun v. United States, [371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441], in announcing the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, limited the exclusionary rule to evidence which the police could not trace to some “independent” and lawful source. While the Supreme Court has not specifically had occasion to consider whether this doctrine is applicable to a search warrant that issues on the basis of an affidavit setting forth information both lawfully and unlawfully obtained, other circuits have applied the “independent source” test. If the lawfully obtained information amounts to probable cause and would have justified issuance of the warrant, apart from the tainted information, the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant is admitted. 418 F.2d at 1151-52 (footnotes omitted).
This circuit had an early encounter with the problem in Parts Mfg. Corp. v. Lynch, 129 F.2d 841 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 674, 63 S.Ct. 79, 87 L.Ed. 541 (1942). There, certain auto parts alleged to have been stolen from Ford Motor Co. had been ordered returned as illegally seized, see Weinberg v. United States, 126 F.2d 1004 (2 Cir. 1942). Before they were returned, FBI agents gave Ford a detailed list of the property seized. Ford replevined the property, which was seized by a New York deputy sheriff and stored in a warehouse. The Assistant U. S. Attorney thereupon visited the warehouse, examined the parts, and subsequently obtained a search warrant, which was executed before Parts Mfg. Co. could retake the goods. It moved that the FBI special agent be required to return the goods because the search was based on information obtained as a result of the illegal first search. Judge Clark found that the Government had sufficient information, independent of any that was obtained illegally, to validate the search warrant. He stated further “Actual examination of the property in the warehouse... simply confirmed what affiants already had reasonable cause to believe would be found.” Id. at 843. Such confirmation did not dictate return of the evidence.
We discussed the taint problem more recently in United States v. Capra, 501 F.2d 267 (2 Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 990, 95 S.Ct. 1424, 43 L.Ed.2d 670 (1975), in the context of a warrantless search. There, the district court upheld such a search of the defendant’s car on the grounds that one of the federal agents knew of defendant’s pri- or use of his car for narcotics transactions and therefore had probable cause to believe that the car was carrying contraband. We noted that even if this agent’s knowledge of defendant’s uses of his car was derived from an illegal wiretap sixteen months before, another agent present at the search had knowledge of defendant’s activities as a narcotics deliveryman that had been legally obtained from an informant, and held that such knowledge was sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause. Id. at 280 n.12.
Other circuits have held squarely that the presence of illegal evidence in affidavits presented for a search warrant does not prevent a finding of probable cause sustainable on other grounds. See United States v. Sterling, 369 F.2d 799, 802 (3 Cir. 1966) (“[T]he law is quite clear that the inclusion of illegally obtained evidence does not vitiate a search warrant which is otherwise validly issued upon probable cause reflected in the affidavit and based on proper sources.”); United States v. Tarrant, 460 F.2d 701, 703-04 (5 Cir. 1972) (where legally obtained information established probable cause, the court need not consider attacks on the legality or sufficiency of other allegations in the affidavits); United States v. Koonce, 485 F.2d 374, 379 (8 Cir. 1973) (where affidavit by one officer cited statements of two informants that defendant possessed a stolen boat and indicated the location of the boat from defendant’s grand jury testimony, the court need not reach questions raised by search conducted by another officer); Chin Kay v. United States, 311 F.2d 317, 321-22 (9 Cir. 1962) (unnecessary to consider attacks on two paragraphs of affidavit since others sufficient to establish probable cause); Howell v. Cupp, 427 F.2d 36, 38 (9 Cir. 1970) (officer’s finding stolen property in defendant’s front seat provided probable cause for warrant to search trunk, not invalidated by previous illegal search of trunk which informed officers of the contents). Insofar as contrary dicta of the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Langley, 466 F.2d 27, 35 (1972), and United States v. Nelson, 459 F.2d 884, 889 (1972), may not be distinguishable as Mr. Justice Powell has thought them to be, see United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 556 n.6, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (dissenting opinion), we continue to adhere to the majority view.
It is true, of course, that if the sole guiding beacon in a Fourth Amendment case were the maximization of deterrence, all evidence obtained by illegal means in any significant part would have to be suppressed, even though there was a sufficient lawful basis for securing it. But the Supreme Court’s decisions on other points of Fourth Amendment law demonstrate that it is not disposed to tilt the balance that far. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). On the basis of the attitude embodied in such decisions, the precedents here reviewed, and our own belief that a violation of the Fourth Amendment should not require exclusion of evidence that was obtainable without it, we uphold the denial of the motion to suppress the note found on Marchand in a search incident to what we consider to have been a lawful arrest.
Y. Alleged Trial Errors
(1) Alleged errors concerning Perkins’ pre-trial photographic identification and sketch.
Appellant mounts a number of attacks relating to Perkins’ photographic identification.
His first claim is that the array was impermissibly suggestive because “the neutral effect of multiple numbers was totally undercut by the fact that Marchand’s picture was the only one which recurred and that of the two large photographs his was the only one of a light-haired man.” (Brief, p. 52). The defense also criticizes the nine months delay in presenting the array, and the use of a photograph display rather than a lineup. We are not persuaded by any of these points. The small photograph of Marchand was somewhat marred by glare; also the larger photograph seems to depict him at a later age. See fn. 6 supra. Indeed, the photographs were sufficiently different to cause Perkins to select only one. Under such circumstances, over-representation of a defendant in the array does not make the procedure impermissibly suggestive, let alone give rise to “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). In Simmons, the Court allowed in-court identifications based on a showing of at least six photos, primarily group photographs, with the defendant appearing several times. See United States v. Falange, 426 F.2d 930, 935 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 906, 91 S.Ct. 149, 27 L.Ed.2d 144 (1970) (inclusion of three photographs of defendant, taken years apart and at different angles, in an array of 16 pictures was not a denial of due process); United States v. Cunningham, 423 F.2d 1269, 1271-73 (4 Cir. 1970) (admission of testimony concerning photographic identifications was not impermissibly suggestive although seven of 14 photographs were of appellants, and the only color photographs were of appellants and a codefendant).
The differences of hair and skin col- or noted by Marchand were not of great significance since all but three of the pictures were on black and white film. Nor did the differences in size of the pictures cause impermissible suggestiveness. As we have recently said:
The due process clause does not require law enforcement officers to scour about for a selection of photographs so similar in their subject matter and composition as to make subconscious influences on witnesses an objective impossibility.
United States v. Bubar, 567 F.2d 192, - (2 Cir. 1977). See United States v. Magnotti, 454 F.2d 1140 (2 Cir. 1972) (full-view photograph of defendant in array with seven mug shots did not give rise to impermissible suggestion); United States v. Harrison, 460 F.2d 270 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 862, 93 S.Ct. 152, 34 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972) (that defendant was the only clean-shaven individual in photo array was not such an unnecessarily striking difference as to make him “stand out prominently from the others”). Although the delay was regrettable, it is not decisive, see United States v. Hurt, 155 U.S.App.D.C. 217, 476 F.2d 1164, 1168 (1973) (delay of one year); moreover, Agent Handoga testified that he had no photographs of Marchand until late 1975 or early 1976. While it is preferable for law enforcement officers to use a line-up rather than photographic identification when the suspect is available, this is not a requirement. United States v. Boston, 508 F.2d 1171, 1176-77 (

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: C