Opinion ID: 774020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Raheem's First Trial

Text: 56 Upon the conclusion of the Wade and Huntley hearings, the state trial court denied the motions to suppress. The court found the confession admissible because when it was given, Raheem was not represented by counsel with respect to the Hill murder. The court concluded that the identifications were admissible because it found the lineup was not directed at Raheem and was not unfair: 57 When [Cooke] went, he looked up and down and made an identification of number one, Mr. Whitaker; that he stated that he made the identification from his eyes and round face[]as well as a black leather coat and I may say that Mr. Shiloh stated that he made[ ]his identification from the face, but it was the black leather coat that convinced him it was the defendant, the number one person, who was there at the time. 58 .... 59 Counsel argues that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated in that it was an unfair lineup. I cannot under any stretch of the imagination see how this was an unfair lineup. First of all, it wasn't for the purpose of identifying the defendant to begin with. It was for the purpose of attempting to identify someone else as the perpetrator. 60 Second, there was no testimony whatsoever that I heard of where anybody suggested or made any undue suggestions to any of the persons who viewed the lineup and I find the lineup was a proper lineup.... 61 (Wade Tr. 258, 260.) 62 Accordingly, at the ensuing trial, both Cooke and Shiloh were allowed to identify Raheem as the shooter. Moore testified that Raheem looked very similar to the shooter, but that Moore wouldn't be too positive. (First Trial Transcript (First Trial Tr.) 309.) Hayward and Dukes testified to the events but were unable to identify Raheem. Dukes said that when Hill was shot she had looked at the shooter's gun, not at what he was wearing; and although she knew he was wearing a coat, she had no idea what color it was or even whether it was light or dark. (See First Trial Tr. 357, 365.) Crabb was allowed to testify that Raheem had confessed. The jury convicted Raheem on all counts. 63 Raheem appealed his conviction, principally challenging the admission of the identification testimony of Cooke and Shiloh and the testimony of Crabb that Raheem had confessed. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, found merit in the latter challenge. See People v. Whitaker, 75 A.D.2d 111, 428 N.Y.S.2d 691 (2d Dep't 1980) (Whitaker/RaheemI). The court found that Crabb's testimony as to Raheem's confession was inadmissible as a matter of State constitutional law as enunciated by the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 173, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 21 (1979), which had held that when an accused is represented by counsel on one charge, information [as to another matter] obtained through... questioning in the absence of counsel may not be used against him, id. at 173 n.2, 422 N.Y.S.2d at 22 n.2. In Whitaker/Raheem I, the Appellate Division stated that 64 [i]mplicit in Rogers is the conclusion that unless an accused has interposed a valid waiver, he is deemed to have been denied effective representation of counsel at a crucial stage of a criminal proceeding in a situation where, although represented by an attorney, he is subjected to an in-custody police interrogation without the attorney being present; and that it is immaterial whether or not the interrogation is related to the charge on which the attorney has been retained or assigned. 65 75 A.D.2d at 123, 428 N.Y.S.2d at 699. The Whitaker/Raheem I court ruled that Rogers was to be applied retroactively, see id., that the confession described by Crabb should accordingly be suppressed, and that Raheem should have a new trial. 66 As to the identifications, however, the Appellate Division found that suppression was not warranted because Raheem was not a suspect at the time of the lineup, and there was 67 no evidence in the record to support a conclusion that the identification proceeding was not fairly conducted or that the identification of [Raheem] as the perpetrator was suggestively induced. In fact, the purpose of using [Raheem], a nonsuspect, in the lineup, was to insure that the procedure would be as fair as possible.... 68 Id. at 125, 428 N.Y.S.2d at 700. The court further stated that even assuming the identification of [Raheem] at the lineup should be suppressed because he was compelled to participate in it, the in court identification of [him] had a sufficient independent origin. Id.