Opinion ID: 774020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Investigation and the Identifications

Text: 7 The police interviewed the witnesses and obtained descriptions of the robbers. The only testimony by a police officer as to the contents of their descriptions of the shooter, given by Detective Anthony Martin at a Wade hearing on a motion to suppress identifications of Raheem by Shiloh and Cooke, see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967), was that a police report state[d] a three quarter length black coat. (Wade Hearing Transcript (Wade Tr.), January 10, 1977, at 233.) However, Shiloh and Cooke, at the Wade hearing or at trial, testified to the somewhat fuller descriptions they recalled having given. 8 Shiloh testified that he told a police detective that the shooter was dressed very neat, brown skin, had a black leather coat and a cap. That's the best description. (Wade Tr. 130.) When the detective asked about height, weight, and age, Shiloh responded that the shooter was about 5'8, 165 or 170 pounds, and perhaps 27-30 years of age. (See id.) Shiloh recalled that the shooter did not have a moustache or long sideburns; but he had not noticed anything about the shooter's eyes, other facial features, head shape, or hair length. (See Wade Tr. 125-26.) 9 Cooke testified that the description he had given the police immediately after the shooting was of a man about five-seven or eight, wearing a black hat and black leather coat. (Wade Tr. 181-82; see also Second Trial Transcript (Second Trial Tr.) 183 (Giving the police the best [description] that [he] could remember, Cooke had figured [the shooter] was about five[ ]seven. I know he had on a black leather coat and he had on a black cap. That I can remember.).) The shooter was medium size and appeared to be in his 20s. (Second Trial Tr. 183-84.) The only facial feature that stood out in Cooke's mind was that the shooter had weird eyes (Second Trial Tr. 184), perhaps a glare or... how he fixed his eyes (Wade Tr. 186). As to whether he had described the shooter's eyes to the detective, Cooke stated: How could you describe his eyes? They were different. That's how I put it, something about it that stood out. (Id.) Cooke testified that he did not recall anything physically distinctive about the shooter's mouth or nose; his only description of the shooter's face was that it was round and that his eyes were weird. (Wade Tr. 186-88.) 10 The subsequent investigation by the police took a number of uncommon turns. First, on January 10, six days after the shooting, Cooke and Shiloh were shown a photographic array. They, independently, selected the same photo as the face of the man who, at gunpoint, had taken their cash and jewelry. Further investigation, however, revealed that their identifications could not be correct. At the time of the robbery, the man Cooke and Shiloh chose was in prison. 11 Next, a police lineup resulted in the identification of a person participating purely by happenstance, rather than the person the police had suspected and placed in the lineup on the basis of confidential information. The police had received a tip from an informant that the person who killed Hill was one Lindsay Webb. Webb was arrested on January 24 and brought to the 77th Precinct, where Detective Martin arranged to hold a lineup. Martin attempted to include in the lineup five police officers who generally matched Webb's appearance. Only three such officers were available, however. In the meantime, Raheem, who was then known as John Whitaker, had been arrested by Detective Clarence Crabb in connection with an unrelated case, the murder of one Harriet Gathers. Whitaker/Raheem was not a suspect in the Hill slaying. He was in custody at the 77th Precinct on January 24 on the Gathers case, and when Martin could not get five police officers who resembled Webb, Martin included Whitaker/Raheem and another arrestee in the lineup. Whitaker/Raheem was wearing a black leather coat. 12 All five of the witnesses to the robbery/murder were asked to view the lineup. Two did not: Moore had an ailing back; Hayward arrived too late. The lineup was viewed by Shiloh, Cooke, and Dukes. Shiloh, upon first viewing the lineup, was unable to identify anyone. Dukes was never able to make an identification. Cooke made an identification; but, to the surprise of the police officers, he identified Whitaker/Raheem, not Webb, as the man who had shot Hill. At the Wade hearing, Cooke testified:Well, I looked them all over carefully because[]I didn't want to make any mistakes and then I picked number one, the guy. Mr. Whitaker had a sign in his hand that said one and I picked him. I said he appeared to be the one that I remember in the bar. And I could tell from his, you know--his coat is another thing. He had on a leather coat that I remembered. 13 .... 14 Q. When you identified Mr. Whitaker as one of the people who were in the bar, did you do that solely based upon the fact that he was[]wearing a black leather coat? 15 MR. FEDER: Objection, your Honor. Leading. 16 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 17 Q. What was the basis for your picking out Mr. Whitaker? 18 A. His face. 19 Q. What were you thinking back to when you made the identification? 20 A. How he looked like the man that I saw in the bar. And the clothes. You know, he had on the same clothes. I looked at the round face. 21 (Wade Tr. 165-66 (emphases added).) Whitaker/Raheem was the only person in the lineup wearing a black leather coat. 22 Shiloh, after viewing the lineup and failing to identify anyone, had remained in a waiting room near the lineup viewing room. He testified that when Cooke returned from the lineup viewing room, Martin took Dukes to view the lineup, and Shiloh and Cooke chatted in the waiting room. They did not talk about the lineup, but when Martin returned with Dukes, Shiloh asked to view the lineup again and was permitted to do so. This time he promptly identified Whitaker/Raheem. At the Wade hearing, he testified: 23 Q. At that time was there any doubt in your mind when you looked through that window the second time that number one was the man that you saw in the bar, was there any doubt? 24 A. Everybody have a little doubt, but I said that was the man. O.K. 25 Q. But you weren't absolutely sure? 26 A. Not positive, but I said that was the man, really, because you see like at the time he was standing there he didn't have the cap on,... but face features of him[,] the black leather coat, the same thing, the black leather coat really set it off for me. 27 Q. That black leather coat was outstanding in your mind? 28 A. Right, because it wasn't no cheap coat. 29 Q. And you remember the black leather coat worn by one of the men in the bar on January 4th? 30 A. Right. 31 .... 32 Q. The fact that John Whitaker was wearing a black leather coat in this lineup and that one of the men in the bar that evening was wearing a black leather coat, you put those two facts together, is that right? 33 A. I am just going by what I saw what he was wearing. That is what I am talking about. 34 .... 35 Q..... Mr. Shiloh, the elements that went through your mind at the time that you asked to make this identification, did you make the identification basically on the facts that the man in the bar on January the 4th was wearing a neat[ ]black leather coat and John Whitaker, number one in the lineup, was wearing a black leather coat? 36 A. Right. 37 THE COURT: Is that the sole basis for your identification? 38 THE WITNESS: Yes. 39 THE COURT: The only basis? 40 THE WITNESS: Yes. 41 THE COURT: Not the face and the features? 42 THE WITNESS: The feature and the face and the black leather jacket. 43 THE COURT: What I asked you was it only the black leather coat. If somebody else in that lineup, number 5 let's say was wearing a neat black leather coat, and Whitaker was not wearing a black leather coat, would you have picked him out? 44 THE WITNESS: Yes. By the face. 45 THE COURT: Would you have picked him out? 46 THE WITNESS: Yes. 47 .... 48 THE COURT: Who would you have picked out? 49 THE WITNESS: I would have picked out Mr. Whitaker. 50 THE COURT: You would have picked out number one anyway even if he wasn't wearing a black leather coat? 51 THE WITNESS: Yes. 52 (Wade Tr. 147-50 (emphasis added).) 53 After Cooke and Shiloh identified Raheem as Hill's killer, Raheem remained in police custody, but only in the Gathers case. For several weeks, he was not accused of the Hill homicide; and although the police investigation continued, the record does not indicate that it turned up any evidence against Raheem. The final twist in the Hill homicide investigation occurred a month after the lineup, when, according to Detective Crabb, Raheem summoned Crabb and confessed. At a pretrial Huntley hearing, see People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838 (1965), a proceeding to determine whether a confession should be suppressed, Crabb testified that Raheem had telephoned him and asked to meet with him. Raheem said Crabb had put [Raheem's] tail in the soup in the Gathers case by extracting from him a statement that subjected him to a charge of felony murder. (Huntley Hearing Transcript, January 6, 1977 (Huntley Tr.), at 34.) 54 On February 23, 1976, Crabb met with Raheem in his cell. Raheem reiterated that Crabb had put [Raheem's] tail in the soup (Huntley Tr. 51) and began to talk to Crabb about the Gathers case. Crabb interrupted, stating that he was not allowed to talk to Raheem about that case because Raheem was represented by counsel, but that Crabb would like to talk about other matters. Crabb asked whether Raheem knew anything about the Hill case; Raheem stated that he did; Crabb gave him Miranda warnings. 55 Crabb testified that Raheem then asked what Crabb could do for him, and when Crabb answered that he could do nothing, Raheem confessed to the Hill murder and robbery. Crabb met with Raheem alone and was the only witness to the confession. He did not call in a stenographer to record Raheem's confession; nor did he ask Raheem to put the statement in writing. Crabb took notes during the conversation; but he did not show them to Raheem or ask Raheem to initial them. A few days later, Raheem was indicted for the murder of Hill, robbery, and criminal possession of a weapon.