Opinion ID: 2543636
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exposure To Opinions, Descriptions, Identifications, Or Other Information

Text: ¶ 49 Regarding the possibility that outside influence tainted the witnesses' identifications, the trial court found that the evidence tends to show there was not [sic] exposure to other opinions regarding the identification of the defendant at least until after the lineup. ¶ 50 In challenging this factual finding, Hollen first points out that Livolsi and Pittman saw the composite that Channing Jones and Contreras helped prepare the day of the robbery. Hollen claims, in effect, that Livolsi's and Pittman's later identifications of Hollen were unconsciously based on their exposure to the composite rather than their own independent recollection of the disguised robber. Hollen's claim is not supported by the clear weight of the evidence, however. To the contrary, the evidence shows Livolsi and Pittman had an opportunity to observe the disguised robber on the day of the robbery. In addition, the court noted that the witnesses themselves had indicated that their identifications were not based on outside influence. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in discounting the significance of the witnesses' exposure to the composite. ¶ 51 Hollen also points out that Channing Jones told Livolsi about seeing the disguised man, whom Jones later identified as Hollen, on television. However, we see little evidence that Livolsi based his subsequent identification on this conversation. Indeed, Hollen does not claim that Livolsi ever saw the television report or otherwise gained insights about Hollen's appearance from his conversations with Channing Jones. At most, Jones's assertions may have caused Livolsi to expect that the lineup would include the disguised robber, but this possibility seems rather remote given that the lineup occurred one year after the television report. ¶ 52 Thus, the circumstances in this case are similar to the situation in Ramirez, where there also was little concern that the eyewitness identification was derivative of another witness's identification: in Ramirez, at the time of the identification, the witness knew only that police believed that the defendant matched the description of the suspect, and that another victim had not identified the suspect as one of the assailants. Id. at 783.