Opinion ID: 2054485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Identification by Mitchell Fischman.

Text: 1. Viewing of the vaulter. Fischman, as noted above, viewed the vaulter for about six seconds, including a rear view for three seconds and a side view for three seconds. The judge found that, brief as it was, Fischman's opportunity to observe was adequate, and that the impressions that the vaulter made on him were such that would cause him to be able to make an identification particularly from the characteristics of the person jumping. 2. Viewing of the photographic arrays. Fischman viewed the photograph books of the Boston police department immediately after the incident. He picked out a picture of Ulatowski as resembling one of the robbers (although the only robber he saw was the vaulter). He later was shown exhibits 2 and 3 by an F.B.I. agent, but made no identification. The judge found that the photographic displays, to the extent that they may have repeated the defendant's picture, had no bearing on [Fischman] in his identification by his own statement and from the lapse of time from the last display to the lineup. 3. Viewing of the defendant at the lineup. When brought to the lineup, despite being told that there would be two suspects there, Fischman was not of a state of mind where he felt he would have to make an identification. After viewing the jumping exercise, he made an identification of Correia as resembling the person, based primarily on his general recollection of what he had seen in the bank and the manner in which Correia had jumped up on the table at the lineup. His identification was also based on the shape of the defendant's face, the length of his arms, and the color of his hair. The use of the wig played no part in his identification. 4. Further findings. The judge made further findings with respect to Fischman, which are repeated in the margin below, [2] and then ruled that the identification could stand.