Opinion ID: 3026445
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officer Weinstein’s Identification

Text: We review the District Court’s denial of Ladson’s motion to suppress Officer Weinstein’s identification testimony for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mathis, 264 F.3d 321, 331 (3d Cir. 2001). If the admission of Officer Weinstein’s identification violated due process, we consider whether this error was harmless. United States v. Brownlee, 454 F.3d 131, 137 (3d Cir. 2006). 1 In any case, the record reveals that Ladson did not suffer actual prejudice. Ladson’s claims at the hearing were entirely speculative, as he failed to identify any specific evidence that had actually become unavailable as a result of the pre-indictment delay. Although Ladson claimed later, in his pro se motion for reconsideration, that his dead father could have provided an alibi defense were it not for the government’s delay, the District Court correctly concluded that Ladson had waived this argument as it was available to him at the time he filed his motion to dismiss. 6 An in-court identification of a defendant tainted by a pre-accusatorial “identification procedure that is both (1) unnecessarily suggestive and (2) creates a substantial risk of misidentification” is suppressible on due process grounds. Id. (citing Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 107 (1977)). The defendant bears the burden of proof on the issue of impermissible suggestiveness. United States v. Clausen, 328 F.3d 708, 713 (3d Cir. 2003). “[S]howing a witness a photographic array can constitute a denial of due process when police attempt to emphasize the photograph of a given suspect, or when the circumstances surrounding the array unduly suggest who an identifying witness should select.” United States v. Lawrence, 349 F.3d 109, 115 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 383 (1968)). The suggestiveness of a photo array is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances. Lawrence, 349 F.3d at 115 (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972)). With regard to the second prong of the test, concerning the overall reliability of the identification, we consider several factors, including “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200. Ladson argues that the procedure underlying Officer Weinstein’s identification was unnecessarily and impermissibly suggestive because the police flyer upon which that identification was based mentioned Ladson’s name and stated that he was as a suspect in the 7 Gold Valley Jewelry Store robbery. Ladson’s argument fails for three reasons. First, the District Court explicitly found that, when Officer Weinstein saw the flyer, he immediately recognized Ladson as the driver of the dark-colored car, and did so prior to seeing Ladson’s name listed at the bottom of the flyer in connection with the Gold Valley robbery. Ladson does not challenge this finding and, in any case, it is not clearly erroneous in light of Officer Weinstein’s testimony at the suppression hearing, which the District Court found to be credible. Second, even if Officer Weinstein’s testimony was not credible, the flyer does not indicate which photograph depicts Ladson. Furthermore, none of the photographs stand out as each is the same size and style and each depicts a heavy-set African-American man in his late twenties or early thirties, which matches the description in the written report Officer Weinstein made after the Security Square Mall incident. Third, as noted by the District Court, we affirmed a similar identification procedure in United States v. Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380, 1390 (3d Cir. 1991). Following our reasoning in Stevens, we find no error in the District Court’s conclusion that Ladson failed to prove that the police flyer was unnecessarily suggestive, even though the flyer may have had some suggestive attributes.2 Therefore, the District Court did not 2 Ladson relies heavily on Manson v. Brathwaite, but that case is inapposite as it deals with a witness who was shown a single photograph in the context of and for the express purpose of making a photographic identification of the perpetrator of a particular crime. 432 U.S. at 108. The other cases cited by Ladson are also inapposite and, regardless, are from other circuits and thus not binding on this Court. 8 abuse its discretion in denying Ladson’s motion to suppress.3