Opinion ID: 12692
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: James Watts

Text: 26 Officer Larry Wittington, during his pursuit of the silver getaway van on April 26, 1995, observed a black male wearing a suit and tie sitting in the passenger seat. Three days later, Officer Wittington was shown a display of six photographs. He selected a photograph of James Watts as the person who was riding in the passenger seat of the van. On appeal, Watts contends that the district court's admission of the photographic identification evidence was constitutionally infirm because: (1) his picture was the only one in the array in which the subject was dressed in a suit and tie; and (2) his picture was positioned in the center position of the top row. We conclude otherwise. 27 The district court, faced with a similar objection, determined that although the photograph of Watts was the only one in which the subject was wearing a suit and tie, the photographic display was not impermissibly suggestive because in all other relevant respects, the individuals shown on the photo spread are similar in apparent size, all have mustaches, all have approximately the same kind of hair. Watts does not dispute the district court's factual finding that the physical appearance--aside from the clothing--of the individuals in the six photos was very similar, and we therefore accept this fact as true. Accordingly, we do not believe that the array was overly suggestive merely because the defendant was the only individual pictured wearing a suit and tie. Further, it is irrelevant that Watts's photograph was located in the top center position of the display. We therefore hold that the court did not err in allowing the identification testimony into evidence. 7