Opinion ID: 2320585
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pre-trial proceedings excluding the identification

Text: During the investigation of the shooting, Detective Wheeler showed Choi, the store owner and the only impartial witness to the shooting, [10] an array of nine photographs which included pictures of appellant and McGill. Choi picked out both men as the robbers, but qualified his identification of appellant by saying that the robber had longer hair than the person in the photograph. [11] Choi was unable to make an in-court identification of appellant at a pretrial hearing, and the prosecutor therefore agreed not to ask Choi to make an in-court identification at trial. Choi's identification from the photo array was excluded in limine as unusable, because the array was unduly suggestive. [12] The prosecutor also agreed not to use appellant's statement to Detective Wheeler that he had gotten all of my hair cut off a few days after the murder because, as the prosecutor conceded, without Choi's identification from the photo array, it was not relevant. [13] A colloquy ensued during which the trial court confirmed that the prosecutor did not intend to elicit information about either Choi's identification or appellant's statement about the haircut in the government's case-in-chief. Defense counsel confirmed to his satisfaction that the prosecutor had prepared Choi sufficiently so that he would not inadvertently blurt out excluded information or give answers unless specifically asked. The trial court warned defense counsel, however, that if he asked questions about whether witnesses had been shown photographs, it would open the door to the introduction of Choi's identification of appellant from the photo array as well as appellant's statement about the haircut.