Opinion ID: 1016568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Photo Line-up

Text: “We review legal conclusions involved in the district court's suppression determination de novo but review factual findings underlying the legal conclusions subject to the clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Ramapuram, 632 F.2d 1149, 1155 (4th Cir. 1980)). When called upon to review the admissibility of challenged identification testimony, we undertake a bipartite analysis. First, the appellant must prove that the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive. Once this threshold is crossed, the court then must determine whether the identification was nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Holdren v. Legursky, 16 F.3d 57, 61 (4th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). If the court concludes that the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, then we will go no further. Harker v. Maryland, 800 F.2d 437, 444 (4th Cir. 1986) (ending analysis after finding photographic array and show-up not impermissibly suggestive). If, however, we find that the identification was impermissibly suggestive, we will then determine 18 whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there is 'a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.'  Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 116 (1977) (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968)). In deciding on the admissibility of the photo line-up, the district court stated: It occurs to me, from looking at these photographs, that it is a series of photographs of individuals perhaps somewhat close in age, it is a picture of six members of the black race, it is a picture of – five of the individuals have very short hair, one – not the Defendant – has longer hair. Four of the pictures seem to be looking essentially at the camera, that’s number two, three, four, and five, of which the Defendant is a member. If it could be argued that the Defendant is not looking at the camera, but is looking slightly away from it, then he would join the group of one and six. So, he is either four out of six who are looking at the camera, or he is three out of six who are looking slightly away from the camera. Nothing suggestive about that, as has not been argued by the Defendant. The only thing that is suggestive here is the tilt of the head that makes this unduly suggestive. Number five is pointed up, and has his head tilted a slight bit, and number four is a picture taken of an individual from approximately the same point of view and front of the individual as is number two. He doesn’t have – number four does not have his head tilted back, and number three may have a slight tilt, but I won’t find that. It occurs to me that what is set forth in these pictures is not sufficient to make this picture unduly suggestive. Two of the individuals have T-shirts on, three of the individuals have shirts, one of the individuals has a sweatjacket, sweatshirt with a hook for it. Each of the individuals has at least some facial hair, unless it is number six, and he probably does not from looking at this photograph. 19 The Court finds from the review of this initial outlay of six photographs that there is nothing so unduly suggestive about the Defendant as to prejudice his rights to a fair photo identification. (J.A. at 78-79.) Cross-examination of the photo identification witnesses exposed any possible flaws to the attention of the jury. The weight and trustworthiness of the identification testimony was properly left to the jury. For these reasons, we hold that the district court committed no reversible error in admitting the photo array or the in-court identification testimony.