Opinion ID: 867112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Identification Procedure

Text: The defendant argues that the photo array used to identify him was impermissibly suggestive in violation of his due process rights. Specifically, the defendant argues that after Mr. Nesbitt described his attacker as having light brown skin, the police officers chose darker-skinned individuals than himself to appear in the photo array alongside him. He points out that the difference in skin tone is exacerbated by a glare from the camera flash that appears on his face. “This court has prescribed a two-step analysis for determining the admissibility of identification testimony.” United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 985 (6th Cir. 2005). “First, the defendant must show that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive.” Id. “If the defendant meets this burden, then the court must evaluate the reliability of the identification in the totality of the circumstances.” Id. (citing Ledbetter v. Edwards, 35 F.3d 1062, 1071–72 (6th Cir. 1994)). For a district court’s admission of identification testimony to violate due process, the identification procedure must be “so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” United States v. Meyer, 359 F.3d 820, 824 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Thigpen v. Cory, 804 F.2d 893, 895 (6th Cir. 1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The defendant falls short of his heavy burden in this instance. First, the police officer who prepared the array testified that he took care to ensure that the defendant shared substantial similarities with the other depicted men. This care is reflected in the photo array, as it reveals five African-American men in addition to the defendant, at least four of whom appear to have some sort of facial hair, and all five of whom appear to be around the same age as the defendant. Although it is true that the defendant has lighter skin than some of the depicted individuals, his skin tone is very close to the men in No. 12-1219 United States v. Washington Page 6 photos four and five, and there is not a drastic difference between the defendant’s skin tone and the remaining photos. Furthermore, although the defendant does have a glare on his face from the camera flash, Mr. Nesbitt was informed that the lighting and complexion of the depicted individuals could be easily altered. The officer who prepared the array also testified that he specifically chose photographs with similar glares to the one in the defendant’s photograph, and at least four of the remaining five photographs do have a similar glare. Contrary to the defendant’s argument, it simply does not appear upon review that this identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive that there was a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Meyer, 359 F.3d at 824. This court’s opinion in Sullivan supports a conclusion that the identification in this case was not a violation of the defendant’s due process rights. Sullivan, 431 F.3d at 984–85. The defendant in Sullivan argued that the photo array used to identify him was unduly suggestive because several witnesses described the defendant as having blue eyes, and he was the only suspect in the photo array with noticeably blue eyes. Id. at 985. Despite this distinction, this court upheld the district court’s conclusion that the array “did not improperly single out the defendant” such as to render it unduly suggestive. Id. An identical conclusion is appropriate here. Because the defendant failed to meet his burden to show that the photo array was unduly suggestive, an analysis of whether the identification was nonetheless reliable is unnecessary. See Mills v. Cason, 572 F.3d 246, 251 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ledbetter, 35 F.3d at 1071) (“If the court determines that the identification was unduly suggestive, it then uses five factors . . . to evaluate ‘the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the identification was nevertheless reliable.’”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, because the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive, we conclude that the district court did not commit clear error by denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the identification. No. 12-1219 United States v. Washington Page 7