Opinion ID: 2796318
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Anderson/Jenkins Calls

Text: Bates argues that the procedures the police used to have Davenport identify the voices heard in recorded jail telephone calls, particularly Anderson’s and Jenkins’ voices, were unnecessarily suggestive. See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 (1967). Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Officer Habeebullah testified that she had listened to the recordings with Davenport, and when he was 24 able to identify voices he recorded the results on voice-identification sheets that she and Davenport signed. Bates’ undue suggestivity argument stems from the detective’s acknowledgment on cross-examination that the names at least of Anderson and Jenkins had been typed at the bottom of the voice identification sheets before they were handed to Davenport. Neither Bates, however, nor any other defendant made a suggestivity objection in the trial court, so our review on the point is for plain error. See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 52 (b); Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 46667 (1997) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). At most the detective’s testimony about the sequence of these events is ambiguous,13 and appellants thus cannot show “obvious” error in the judge’s admission of the identifications. Olano, 507 U.S. at 734. Moreover, since the record shows that 13 A. Well, before he [Davenport] saw the sheet he said the name of the person. So that wasn’t suggestive. He supplied me the names first before he wrote this name on this piece of paper. Q. But you had already handed him the piece of paper as you’ve already told us and right on the piece of paper its says Boogie [Jenkins] and Peanut [Anderson] continue their conversation, right? A. Correct. Q. So he was filling out this paper, as he listened to the tapes, right? A. Yes. 25 Davenport had known Anderson and Jenkins for years, appellants are equally hardpressed to dispute that the voice identifications, suggestivity aside, were reliable in all the circumstances. See Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977).