Opinion ID: 2998709
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Investigative Flaws

Text: The first of Alexander’s claims centers on a number of alleged flaws in the criminal investigation that led to his conviction. He contends that in their zeal to solve the River Park sexual assaults, the task force officers improperly interviewed witnesses and carelessly conducted photographic and lineup identification procedures. The implication is that South Bend’s sloppy identification techniques suggested to victims and witnesses that Alexander was the man who committed these crimes. The district court held that Alexander failed to identify evidence of any constitutional violation. The district court was correct. The Constitution does not require that police lineups, photo arrays, and witness interviews meet a particular standard of quality. See Hensley v. Carey, 818 F.2d 646, 648, 650 (7th Cir. 1987). It does, however, guarantee the right to a fair trial—in this context, via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—and that right is violated if unduly suggestive identification techniques are allowed to No. 04-2535 7 taint the trial. See Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113 & n.13 (1977) (“Unlike a warrantless search, a suggestive preindictment identification does not in itself intrude upon a constitutionally protected interest.”); Hensley, 818 F.2d at 648. The Brathwaite standard for evaluating the admissibility of identification evidence focuses on whether the identification procedure was unduly suggestive and whether the resulting identification is reliable. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 113-14. Both suggestiveness and reliability are evaluated by reference to the totality of the circumstances. Id. Grounded in due process, the constitutional interest implicated in challenges to police identification procedures is evidentiary in nature. Id. at 113 n.14; Hensley, 818 F.2d at 648. Thus, we recognized in Hensley that the Brathwaite rule regarding unduly suggestive identification procedures “is a prophylactic rule designed to protect a core right, that is the right to a fair trial, and it is only the violation of that core right and not the prophylactic rule that should be actionable under § 1983.” Hensley, 818 F.2d at 649. Accordingly, South Bend cannot be liable under § 1983 unless Alexander shows how the flaws in South Bend’s identification techniques made his trial unfair. See id. (“Hensley has no claim under § 1983 arising out of his participation in an unduly suggestive lineup since he was not deprived of his right to a fair trial.”). But Alexander has told us almost nothing about his trial. He has only very generally asserted that some of the witnesses who viewed the photo arrays and lineup testified. This is insufficient to forestall summary judgment. Hensley’s point is this: flawed identification procedures are not themselves constitutional violations; plaintiffs must show how those flawed procedures compromised the constitutional right to a fair trial. What identification evidence was actually admitted at trial? What did the victims, eyewitnesses, and police officers say? Were they cross-examined? Were the circumstances surrounding the 8 No. 04-2535 identification and the police procedures put before the jury? What exhibits were admitted on this issue? Was any objection or motion to suppress the identification evidence made? What other evidence tended to link the defendant to the crime? Each of these factors—the list is illustrative, not exhaustive—have a bearing on whether a fair trial was had. In Hensley there was never a trial—charges were brought against Hensley following an allegedly suggestive lineup but were dropped before trial. Id. at 647. The due process right was therefore not implicated, and we affirmed a summary judgment dismissing Hensley’s claim. Here, of course, there was a trial, but that distinction alone is not enough to carry Alexander’s burden. A plaintiff with this kind of claim must demonstrate, by reference to the Brathwaite standard, that unduly suggestive identification procedures led to an unreliable identification that undermined the fairness of his trial. Hensley could not do it because he was never tried; Alexander has not done it (even if he could have). Simply saying that a witness was shown a suggestive photo array or lineup and later testified is not enough. That Alexander was later exonerated does not, without more, make his case that a due process violation has occurred. Alexander has come up short because he has not made any effort to describe how the police identification procedures tainted his trial. He has not identified or produced the relevant portions of the trial transcript or even described the pertinent trial testimony or evidence. He has recited a litany of poor investigative practices, but his argument is scattershot and does not direct us to anything that occurred during the pretrial or trial proceedings in the prosecution against him. Photos of the lineup and photo array are in the record, but without the corresponding trial testimony from the police, victims, and No. 04-2535 9 eyewitnesses, we cannot conduct the appropriate legal analysis. It is telling that Alexander did not move to suppress or otherwise object to the introduction of the identification evidence on grounds of unconstitutional suggestiveness. Without the trial record we cannot determine whether such a motion, had it been made, would or should have been granted. The photos of the lineup and photo array do not depict identification procedures so obviously suggestive and unreliable as to establish, by themselves, a constitutional violation. For its part, South Bend notes that the victims and eyewitnesses were extensively cross-examined. Alexander’s is a sympathetic case, but we cannot connect the dots for him. That he must do on his own. Estate of Moreland v. Dieter, 395 F.3d 747, 759 (7th Cir. 2005) (“We will not scour a record to locate evidence supporting a party’s legal argument.”).