Opinion ID: 1935592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the post lineup identification and the suppression hearing

Text: After he identified appellant in the police lineup, Frank Robinson, his wife, and granddaughter, were waiting in the station house hallway for an elevator. Appellant, in handcuffs and accompanied by a police officer, was in the process of being returned to jail. The policemen and appellant entered the elevator along with Florence Robinson and the granddaughter. Frank Robinson, engaged in a conversation with a policeman, did not enter the elevator along with appellant and the others; instead, he rode in the next elevator. Upon rejoining the two women in the lobby, Robinson asked his granddaughter whether she was acquainted with the prisoner in the elevator. She stated that appellant was a former classmate with whom she was casually acquainted. Robinson then replied that's the boy who shot and robbed me. A hearing on appellant's motion to suppress Robinson's lineup identification was held immediately prior to trial on December 8, 1976. The trial court concluded, inter alia, that the lineup conducted twelve days after the robbery was not impermissibly suggestive, and, hence, evidence of that identification would be admissible at trial. During the suppression hearing, Frank Robinson, age 75, was unable to identify appellant as the man who had robbed and shot him 23 months earlier: Well . . . [the prosecutor] asked me if I saw anyone in the courtroom who robbed me. I told him the only guy I see in the room is the guy over there [the appellant]. I don't see anyone who participated in the robbery . . . the guy I picked out of the lineup, I don't see him. [13] When Robinson's failure to identify appellant during the suppression hearing was probed by counsel, Robinson wavered somewhat and stated that he couldn't be sure whether appellant was the man he had identified at the lineup. On December 9, 1976, additional testimony was heard on appellant's motion to suppress. Frank Robinson testified that after the December 8 suppression hearing, while he was waiting to be called as a witness at trial, he had observed outside the courtroom and in the courthouse cafeteria, the assailant who shot and robbed him. Although Robinson testified that this individual had not been present in court during the December 8, 1976 suppression hearing, testimony of his granddaughter and others indicates that the person Robinson had encountered was the appellant. When cross-examined by defense counsel, Robinson testified that his belated recognition of appellant stemmed primarily from observations made while sitting in the courthouse cafeteria: All I know is the one I saw out there today [in the cafeteria and hallway], I saw good, because I walked around in front of him and behind him  I got a good look both ways. [14] At the close of the second day of testimony at the suppression hearing, the trial court ruled that Robinson would be permitted to attempt an in-court identification of appellant. The trial court also ruled that Robinson's granddaughter would be permitted to testify (1) as to Robinson's identification of appellant immediately following the lineup, and (2) as to Robinson's identification of appellant in the courthouse cafeteria. At trial, the evidence adduced by the government was substantially similar to that presented during the two-day hearing on appellant's motion to suppress. While Florence Robinson was unable to make an in-court identification of appellant, Frank Robinson did identify appellant in court as the man who robbed and shot him 23 months earlier. Although Robinson was extensively cross-examined regarding his inability to identify appellant in person during the suppression hearing on December 8, 1976, he emphatically maintained that appellant was the man he had identified at the lineup as one of his assailants. The following colloquy is representative: DEFENSE COUNSEL: On Wednesday [at the suppression hearing] when you said the man who robbed you wasn't in the courtroom, did you have an opportunity to observe everyone in the courtroom. ROBINSON: Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL: And the man wasn't here Wednesday? ROBINSON: I said the man wasn't here Wednesday I picked out of the lineup. . . DEFENSE COUNSEL: All right. Is the man you picked out in the lineup in the courtroom today? ROBINSON: Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Well, is that the same man who was here Wednesday? ROBINSON: Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Well, now, on Wednesday, you said the man you picked out of the lineup wasn't in the courtroom. ROBINSON: I still say it. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Now Mr. Robinson. ROBINSON: See, I thought I explained that to you. You understand, I explained that to you over and over. . . I said that in nearly two years time that anyone had grown more hair, more mustache.. . . [So] I look over at the [accused] and you all are shooting questions at me and I told you he wasn't in the courtroom, not the man I picked at the lineup. And you called me back Wednesday and asked me the same and I still stick to that. And the first time I got chance enough to even observe the man and look him over back to front was yesterday in the cafeteria. At trial, Robinson attributed his inability to identify appellant at the suppression hearing conducted two days before to (1) the lapse of nearly two years since the offense, (2) changes in the length of appellant's hair and mustache, (3) the aggressive questioning by defense counsel, (4) differences in appellant's appearance due to his clothing and the courtroom lighting, [15] and (5) his opportunity to observe appellant more fully in the courthouse cafeteria and hallway. Robinson also testified that he had been in prison himself and did not want to be responsible for incarcerating anyone.