Opinion ID: 216989
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Goodman’s Identification

Text: Waters argues that the procedure used to garner Goodman’s identification was unnecessarily suggestive because less suggestive procedures were available. Waters asserts that the identification was unduly suggestive because three officers escorted Waters into the hospital room and the officers prefaced the show-up by noting that Waters was a “person of interest.” In other words, Goodman knew that Waters was not a hospital patient. Waters contends that “there was no indication that Mr. Goodman’s injuries were life threatening” because the bullet struck no vital organs. Waters argues that the identification is not sufficiently reliable because Goodman saw the perpetrator’s face for four to seven seconds, gave a vague, inaccurate description of the perpetrator, and then was not completely sure about identifying Waters an hour after the robbery. Similar to any other show-up procedure, the show-up procedure for Goodman’s identification of Waters was suggestive because a show-up procedure is inherently suggestive. Brownlee, 454 F.3d at 138 (citing Stovall, 388 U.S. at 302). Officers brought Waters in for identification while he was handcuffed and no other “suspect” was 14 presented to Goodman. Lieutenant DiGiuseppe testified, however, that Goodman was in a room “where extremely critical people are worked on” and that he thought Goodman “might not make it” because he appeared to be in “very critical” condition due to the bleeding and the nature of the gunshot wound. 7 (Appellee’s Supp. App. at 384–87.) This identification procedure was not unnecessarily suggestive because Goodman suffered a serious injury and officers were not certain that Goodman would survive the incident to be able to identify Waters in a lineup at a police station. Thus, there was a good reason for failing to resort to a less suggestive procedure. See Stovall, 388 U.S. (holding that a suggestive show-up was “imperative” where it was not clear how long the person making the identification would live; she was not able to visit the jail; taking the defendant to the hospital room was the only feasible procedure; and a line-up at the police station was not possible); compare with Brownlee, 454 F.3d at 138 (“there is no reason evident why Brownlee and the witnesses could not have been taken to the police station for a less suggestive line-up or photo array”). Even if the identification procedure were unnecessarily suggestive, it did not create a substantial risk of misidentification when considering the totality of the circumstances. Although the witness did not see the perpetrator for an extremely long period of time during the robbery, the amount of time and Goodman’s clear view of the perpetrator’s face were sufficient for Goodman to give a fairly accurate description to the police, even while he was injured at the crime scene. Moreover, the identification was 7 Lieutenant DiGiuseppe also testified that he knew Goodman’s “condition was very, very serious” and “life threatening.” (Appellant’s App., Vol. 2, at 205a.) 15 made within fifteen minutes to an hour of the robbery, and Goodman was “98 percent sure” of the identification. See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 201 (finding that there was “no substantial likelihood of misidentification” when the identification occurred seven months after the crime); Manson, 432 U.S. 114–16 (finding that the indicators of the witness’s ability to make an accurate identification, including correct identification of race, height, hair, and facial structure, were not outweighed by the corrupting effect of the challenged identification). Thus, the District Court properly denied Waters’s motion to suppress Goodman’s identification testimony.