Opinion ID: 774020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reliability Independent of the Black Leather Coat

Text: 141 The question remains whether the identifications of Raheem by Cooke and Shiloh had reliability independent of the suggestive lineup. Looking to the Neil v. Biggers factors discussed in Part II.A.2. above, to wit, the witness's opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation, we note that most of those factors in this case give at best mixed signals and ultimately, in light of the circumstances as a whole, do not suggest reliability independent of the black leather coat. 142 The witnesses' opportunity to view the shooter was good in terms of the duration of the overall encounter. The robbers were in the Moulin Rouge for some 15 minutes before Hill was shot. On the other hand, Cooke felt that the bar was dimly lit, and he acknowledged that he was wearing prescription shades (Second Trial Tr. 189). We note that Cooke also testified that he saw the shooter again when the shooter came to the door of the bathroom where the bar patrons had been herded, to ask which key fit Moore's car (see Wade Tr. 162; Second Trial Tr. 177-78), though Moore's own testimony was that no one came to the bathroom to ask him about his keys (see Second Trial Tr. 215). The opportunity factor, on balance, seems to favor reliability. 143 As to the witnesses' degree of attention, Cooke and Shiloh testified that during the 15 minutes in question they frequently glanced at the strangers. On the other hand, they were also chatting, drinking scotch, and watching a football game. Further, immediately after they heard the shot and saw the shooter holding a gun, the hold-up was announced, and the man standing closest to Shiloh, Cooke, and Moore brandished his gun at them. Plainly their attention was immediately focused more on that man than on the man who had shot Hill; indeed, Shiloh testified that he did not pay any attention to the shooter after the second robber pointed his gun toward Shiloh, Cooke, and Moore. (Second Trial Tr. 126-27.) Further, it is human nature for a person toward whom a gun is being pointed to focus his attention more on the gun than on the face of the person pointing it. (See, e.g., Second Trial Tr. 210 (Moore: Actually, you're looking at the gun more than anything else, you know.); see also First Trial Tr. 357-58 (Dukes: (I just looked at the gun. That's all I look. I didn't look at [the shooter].).) Thus, Cooke and Shiloh, independently of one another, selected the wrong person (one who was in prison at the time of the robbery) from a photo array as the gunman who had accosted them directly and taken their money and jewelry. The record provides no reason to believe that their attention to the face of the man who had shot Hill was any greater than their attention to the face of the man who directly robbed them at gunpoint, whom they misidentified. 144 Nor do the descriptions of the shooter given by Cooke and Shiloh to the police instill any confidence as to the reliability of their identifications of Raheem as the shooter independently of the black leather coat, for though they provided general information as to the shooter's age, height, and weight, they provided virtually no detail about his face. Cooke, for example, had said the shooter's face was round and without a moustache; but he had been unable to cite any other physical details. Although he mentioned the shooter's eyes, his recollection was not of a physical feature such as color, shape, or protrusion, compare Dunnigan v. Keane, 137 F.3d at 121 (bugged eyes); rather, his description of the eyes as weird (Second Trial Tr. 184) because of the shooter's glare or the manner in which he fixed his eyes (Wade Tr. 186) was merely a description of demeanor. How could you describe his eyes? They were different. That's how I put it, something about it that stood out. (Id.) Cooke further testified that he d[id]n't remember anything about the mouth (id.) and had no impression about the nose (Wade Tr. 187). As the state trial court, in sustaining an objection to further probing at the Wade hearing, summarized Cooke's testimony, He has already described to you, counsellor, what impression he had and he said it was the round face and the eyes and that's all. (Wade Tr. 187-88 (emphasis added).) 145 Nor had Shiloh provided any details of the shooter's face, for he had not noticed his features, his eyes... [o]r the shape of his head, or the length of his hair. (Wade Tr. 125; see Second Trial Tr. 122.) He testified in part as follows: 146 Q. Did you notice at that time in the Moulin Rouge Bar, Mr. Shiloh[,] anything distinctive about John Whitaker? 147 A. The only thing I could see he was dressed very neat, very neat. 148 Q. Well, you told us that you saw a man smaller than a companion of his wearing a leather cap and a leather coat, and you say that man was dressed neatly. Was there anything else about the[ ]person that you observed at that time that you retained in your mind? 149 A. No. 150 (Wade Tr. 124 (emphases added).) 151 Thus, the prior descriptions by Cooke and Shiloh of the shooter cannot be viewed as indicia of independent reliability as to their selection of Raheem. Indeed, far from having described any features that were distinctive, Shiloh testified that the shooter had looked just like any other person who was dressed real neat. (Second Trial Tr. 110.) 152 The level of certainty exhibited by Cooke and Shiloh in their identifications was mixed. Cooke apparently showed no uncertainty in selecting Raheem. Shiloh, in contrast, at first identified no one. Even after selecting Raheem upon the second viewing, Shiloh said that he had ha[d] a little doubt and was [n]ot positive (Wade Tr. 147), stating that it was the black leather coat that decided it for him (see id.). To the extent that either Cooke or Shiloh exhibited certainty, we find it difficult to view that certainty as an indicator of reliability independent of the suggestive lineup, given their lack of recollection as to any physical features of the shooter's face (except, as to Cooke, its roundness). Whatever their certainty, it was engendered by the suggestive element itself, the black leather coat. 153 Finally, the length of time between the crime and the confrontation does not, given all the circumstances here, suggest reliability. While the time between the crime and the lineup--less than three weeks--was not great, it is noteworthy that Cooke and Shiloh, independently of one another, had made wrong identifications of the gunman closest to them from a photo array less than one week after the event. Thus, for Cooke and Shiloh, the three-week interval between the event and their selection of Raheem was hardly an indicator that their recollections of the shooter were reliable. We note also that the interval between the crime and the in-court identifications by Cooke and Shiloh at Raheem's second trial was more than five years. We see nothing to suggest that those witnesses' identifications of Raheem became more reliable during that period. 154 Given the poor ratings of Cooke and Shiloh on most of the Neil v. Biggers factors, and in light of the totality of the circumstances, which included their inability to describe any features of the shooter's face, the misidentification by both witnesses of the gunman who had been closest to them and had physically taken property from them, the fact that what both witnesses called the best description they could give of the shooter focused not at all on his face but emphasized his black leather coat (Second Trial Tr. 183 (Cooke); Wade Tr. 130 (Shiloh)), and the fact that both witnesses repeatedly cited the coat worn by Raheem as influential in their selection of him, we cannot conclude that the identifications by Cooke and Shiloh had reliability independent of the black leather coat.