Opinion ID: 384950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the identification in this case

Text: Over a five-month period, Officer Scott saw a man he called John Doe Number 8 almost a dozen times. 3 On four occasions, Scott bought narcotics from Number 8. After each purchase, he filled out a Buy Report, describing the person who sold him the drugs. 4 Two times, Number 8 was wearing a T-shirt. 5 On those days, Scott reported Number 8's weight at 185 and 189 pounds. 6 On the other two occasions, Scott recorded Number 8's weight at 175 and 185 pounds. 7 Yet, Robert Butler weighs only 130 pounds. 8 This is an extraordinary discrepancy. When asked to explain it, Officer Scott testified that, when arrested, Butler appeared heavier than 130 pounds because he was wearing two pairs of pants. 9 Of course, this does not explain why Scott would have miscalculated Number 8's weight on the nights he made the purchases. 10 What it does explain inadvertently, to be sure is why Scott may have mistaken Butler for the heavier Number 8 on the night of the arrest. 11 Furthermore, weight was not the only area of discrepancy between Officer Scott's descriptions of Number 8 and the facts about Robert Butler. Admittedly, the other discrepancies are minor, or develop only if the testimony of defense witnesses is credited. 12 But their existence certainly does nothing to lend authority to the officer's identification. And, when they are seen in combination, even plausible discrepancies can reveal a disturbingly consistent penchant for inaccuracy. Such is the case here. One final matter should be noted. All parties agreed that when Robert Butler was arrested, he had no drugs in his possession. 13 He made no statements that would indicate that he knew or recognized Officer Scott. 14 And, he did not flee. 15 While these facts are not conclusive, they cast doubt only on Butler's guilt, not on his innocence. Officer Scott presented himself as a trained and careful observer. This claim of expertise only serves to accentuate the discrepancies between, on the one hand, Scott's descriptions of the man he called John Doe Number 8 and, on the other hand, the uncontested facts about Robert Butler. The more one credits Scott's powers of observation, the greater weight must be given to his contemporaneous descriptions of Number 8, and the more implausible it becomes that Robert Butler is Number 8. Nonetheless, in spite of all, Officer Scott asserted at trial that Robert Butler was the man he knew as Number 8. And based upon that assertion, and it alone, Robert Butler was sent to prison.