Opinion ID: 683742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Pre-trial Hearing on In-Court Identification

Text: 14 Allison Johnson identified Brown as the man who robbed her by picking his photograph out of an array of pictures of eight black men. Brown filed pre-trial motions to suppress the out-of-court photographic identification as impermissibly suggestive and sought to suppress Johnson's in-court identification of Brown, requesting leave to conduct a preliminary voir dire examination of her to decide whether her identification was unreliable. The court allowed a brief pre-trial examination of Johnson concerning the suggestiveness of the photo array, but refused to allow an examination to determine the reliability of her in-court identification. The court then denied Brown's motions to suppress the out-of-court and in-court identifications. 15 On appeal, Brown does not challenge the district court's finding that the photo array was not impermissibly suggestive. He argues, however, that the district court improperly denied his motion to conduct a voir dire examination of Allison Johnson outside the presence of the jury in order to bar her in-court identification of Brown as the July 3 robber. He asserts that her identification was unreliable because she had little opportunity to examine her assailant, who was disguised by sunglasses and a baseball cap. 16 Courts engage in a two-step analysis when a defendant challenges an identification procedure. First, the defendant must prove that the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive.... Once this threshold is crossed, the court then must determine whether the identification was nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Holdren v. Legursky, 16 F.3d 57, 61 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 106 (1994). If the court decides that the defendant failed to show that the confrontation procedure was impermissibly suggestive, the inquiry ends. United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482, 492 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1023 (1986); cf. Harker v. Maryland, 800 F.2d 437, 444 (4th Cir.1986) (ending analysis after finding photographic array and show-up not impermissibly suggestive). If however, the court finds the identification process impermissibly suggestive, the court then determines whether under the totality of the circumstances, there is 'a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.'  Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 116 (1977) (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1986)). 17 The Supreme Court enumerated five factors to be considered in deciding the admissibility of identification testimony. These factors, which determine reliability of the identification, are:  the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Manson, 432 U.S. at 114. Because deciding on the reliability of evidence is a function of the jury, the Constitution does not mandate a per se rule that an evidentiary hearing on the admissibility of identification evidence is needed. Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 347-49 (1981). 18 Brown does not allege that Johnson's in-court identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive. In the absence of an impermissibly suggestive identification procedure, there was no need for the district court to determine the reliability of Johnson's identification of Brown. Moreover, even if the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive, under Watkins, no pretrial hearing was necessary to conduct the reliability analysis of the identification.  Instead, the weight and trustworthiness of Johnson's in-court identification testimony properly was left to the jury, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brown an evidentiary hearing on the reliability of this identification. See Davenport, 753 F.2d at 1462 (reviewing under abuse of discretion standard court's decision not to hold hearing on reliability of identification).