Opinion ID: 4555066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Show-Up Identifications Were Reliable

Text: Robinson also argues that the show-up identifications should be suppressed because they violated his rights under the Due Process Clause. Again, we disagree. An identification procedure violates the Due Process Clause if it is “unnecessarily suggestive” and results in a “substantial risk of misidentification.” United States v. Emanuele, 51 F.3d 1123, 1128 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting Gov’t of the V.I. v. Riley, 973 F.2d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 1992)). An identification resulting from an unduly suggestive identification procedure need not be suppressed if the identification “possesses sufficient aspects of reliability, for reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To determine whether an identification is reliable, we consider: (1) the witness’s opportunity to observe the perpetrator during the commission of the crime; (2) how attentive the witness was at that time; (3) whether the witness has provided a prior accurate description of the perpetrator; (4) the witness’s level of certainty at the time of the identification; and (5) the length of 7 time between the crime and the witness identification. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199–200 (1972). We need not decide whether the show-up identifications were unduly suggestive because the District Court correctly decided that the identifications were reliable. Both witnesses were able to observe Robinson closely during the commission of the crime. Robinson did not disguise his appearance during the robberies. The first witness said that he watched Robinson enter the bank and approach the teller. He was approximately twenty feet away from Robinson. The other witness was the teller that Robinson approached to demand the money. She too had ample opportunity to take note of Robinson’s appearance, as she was only one hand length away from Robinson. Both witnesses provided detailed descriptions that were very similar to Robinson’s appearance. On the day of the robbery, the first witness described the perpetrator as “a black male, late 30s to early 40s, having the approximate height of five-foot-nine inches to five-foot-ten, moustache, beard, having an approximate weight of 350 pounds, wearing a gray knit cap, black shirt, gray undershirt, gray sweat pants, gloves, dark colored cane.” A126. The second witness described the perpetrator as “[a] black male, five-foot-seven inches tall, mid-30s, medium complexion, black hoody, zip up, gray . . . sweats, black gloves and a black beanie. He was also carrying a wooden stick or cane.” A128. 1 1 At the scene of the crime, the second witness initially described the perpetrator as light skinned with facial hair, wearing a dark sweatshirt and gray skull cap, and sixfeet tall, two hundred plus pounds. These descriptions are sufficiently similar that they do not undermine the reliability of the identification. 8 These descriptions are very similar to Robinson’s appearance at the time of the identification and in the photographs from the banks during the robberies. Both witnesses expressed complete certainty about their identifications. Finally, they identified Robinson the day after the bank robbery took place, when their recollections were still fresh. Thus, since the Biggers factors indicate that the identifications were reliable, we conclude that the District Court did not err in denying Robinson’s motion to suppress the identifications.