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

Heading: The Lineup's Suggestiveness as to Raheem

Text: 120 In the present case, as the district court found and as the description in Part I.B. above of the record of the state-court proceedings demonstrates, the lineup in which Raheem appeared in his black leather coat was plainly suggestive to Cooke and Shiloh. Those two witnesses had given the police descriptions that emphasized the shooter's black leather coat. Cooke, for example, testified that in giving the police the best [description] that [he] could remember, he 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. (Second Trial Tr. 183.) 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.) Indeed, three quarter length black coat (Wade Tr. 233) was the only part of any witness's description that was mentioned in the testimony of any police officer. 121 With respect to their selections of Raheem from the lineup, in which only Raheem appeared in a black leather coat, Cooke and Shiloh repeatedly mentioned the impact of the coat. Cooke testified that Raheem 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. (Wade Tr. 147; see also Second Trial Tr. 194 (in the lineup, Cook was struck by the fact that Raheem was wearing a black leather coat).) Shiloh, who at first failed to identify anyone in the lineup, testified that what made him want to view the lineup a second time was [Raheem's] face and his black leather coat and that when he returned to view the lineup a second time, he looked at Raheem's face and that black leather coat. (Second Trial Tr. 111.) Shiloh stated that at the lineup the black leather coat really set it off for me. (Wade Tr. 147.) Indeed, before prolonged questioning by the court eventually elicited from Shiloh the response that he would have selected Raheem from the lineup even if Raheem had not been wearing a black leather coat (see Wade Tr. 149-50), Shiloh repeatedly said that his identification of Raheem was based, in whole or in part, on the coat: 122 Q. That black leather coat was outstanding in your mind? 123 A. Right, because it wasn't no cheap coat. 124 (Wade Tr. 147.) 125 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? 126 A. I am just going by what I saw what he was wearing. That is what I am talking about. 127 (Wade Tr. 148.) 128 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? A. Right 129 THE COURT: Is that the sole basis for your identification? 130 THE WITNESS: Yes. 131 THE COURT: The only basis? 132 THE WITNESS: Yes. 133 THE COURT: Not the face and the features? 134 THE WITNESS: The feature and the face and the black leather jacket. 135 (Wade Tr. 148-49.) 136 Accordingly, even the state trial court, which declined to suppress the identifications by Cooke and Shiloh, found that Cooke stated that he made the identification from [Raheem's] eyes and round face[]as well as a black leather coat, and that Shiloh stated that he made his identification from the face, but it was the black leather coat that convinced him it was the defendant, the number one person, who was there at the time. (Wade Tr. 258 (emphases added).) 137 Plainly, the black leather coat worn by the shooter at the Moulin Rouge was the outstanding feature of the assailant's appearance in the minds of Cooke and Shiloh, was an integral part of the description that each provided to the police, and was a critical factor in those witnesses' selection of Raheem from the lineup. 138 The State contends that the lineup was not suggestive because the goal was to present persons whose appearances were similar to that of Webb, the man the police had arrested as their suspect. This argument is wide of the mark. A lineup plainly may be nonsuggestive with respect to one participant but suggestive as to another where the appearances of the two are different and only the latter meets the viewing witness's prior description. To the extent that the State means to emphasize that its assemblage of a lineup that was suggestive as to Raheem was unintentional, that argument is immaterial. The purpose of excluding identifications that result from suggestive police procedures is not deterrence but rather the reduction of the likelihood of misidentification. See, e.g., Thigpen v. Cory, 804 F.2d 893, 895-96 (6th Cir. 1986); Green v. Loggins, 614 F.2d 219, 222 (9th Cir. 1980); see generally Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 112-14 (question of whether the police procedures constituted misconduct is not determinative of whether an identification was suggestive). It is certainly possible that an in-court identification by a prosecution witness may prove to be unreliable, even though the pre-trial encounter in question has not involved any culpable police conduct. Green v. Loggins, 614 F.2d at 222; see also Israel v. Odom, 521 F.2d at 1374 n.7 (where witness had emphasized the assailant's eyeglasses, and there was no evidence to indicate that the police in any way suggested or required that the defendant wear his eyeglasses in the lineup, [t]he suggestiveness of the identification procedure result[ed], not from police motive or misbehavior, but from the fact that [the defendant] was the only lineup participant to be wearing glasses). Here, although it apparently was happenstance that Raheem was at the 77th Precinct when the lineup was being assembled for Webb, the fact remains that the most prominent feature that had been mentioned by Cooke and Shiloh in their descriptions to the police was the shooter's black leather coat. As to those witnesses, the appearance of Raheem as the only participant in the lineup wearing such a coat was unnecessarily suggestive. 139 The State also argues that the lineup should not be found suggestive because one of the witnesses who viewed the lineup, Cecile Dukes, was unable to make an identification, despite her opportunity to observe the gunman on the night of the shooting.... (State brief on appeal at 30.) But this argument proves too much: Dukes had not noticed details of the coat the shooter was wearing, or even whether his coat was light or dark (see First Trial Tr. 365). Thus, a lineup in which only one of the participants wore a black leather coat was not suggestive to Dukes. The only witnesses who selected Raheem from the lineup were Cooke and Shiloh, both of whom had noticed and described to the police the shooter's coat. And those witnesses clearly indicated that their selection of Raheem was influenced by his wearing such a coat. As to Cooke and Shiloh, the lineup was suggestive. 140