Opinion ID: 766158
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A Pre-trial Evidentiary Hearing

Text: 55 The final challenge raised by the defendants that we consider involves the district court's decision to deny their request for a pre-trial evidentiary hearing regarding the out-of-court identifications by two of the victims. The defendants claim that the court should have provided them with a hearing before it decided to permit the introduction of the out-of-court identifications of Varela, Torres, Sanchez and Ruiz by victims Martinez and Flores. The defendants maintain these identifications were unduly suggestive because of the manner in which law enforcement officials obtained them. They assert that they presented sufficient evidence to show that the photo array used to obtain the identifications was unduly suggestive and increased the likelihood of mistaken identification. This challenge, however, amounts only to a contest of the district court's denial of the hearing, not the constitutionality of the photo array. 56 Whether or not to conduct a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to assess the admissibility of an identification is within the judgment of the district court and, thus, subject to deferential review. See United States v. Bolton, 977 F.2d 1196, 1201 (7th Cir. 1992); cf. United States v. Rodriguez, 69 F.3d 136, 140 (7th Cir. 1995) (concluding that the Court should review a denial of an evidentiary hearing to determine whether an encounter with law enforcement amounted to a seizure under a clearly erroneous standard because of the factually specific nature of the inquiry); United States v. Rollins, 862 F.2d 1282, 1291 (7th Cir. 1988) (stating that a district court has discretion whether or not to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding a motion to suppress). The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the U.S. Constitution does not contemplate a per se rule mandating a judicial determination as to the admissibility of identification evidence outside the presence of the jury in every case. See Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 349 (1981). In fact, it is often properly left to the jury to determine the reliability of identification evidence. See United States v. Johnson, 859 F.2d 1289, 1296 (7th Cir. 1988). 57 This Court has outlined a rather straightforward test to evaluate whether a district court has erred by denying a defendant a pre-trial evidentiary hearing. To successfully argue that a district court improperly denied her a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, a defendant must demonstrate that the parties disputed material issues of fact. See Rollins, 862 F.2d at 1291 (citing Nechy v. United States, 665 F.2d 775, 776 (7th Cir. 1981)). This burden may only be met by the defendant showing definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural facts. See Rodriguez, 69 F.3d at 141 (citations omitted). When evaluating the district court's decision under this test, we review its exercise of discretion based upon the state of the record at the time the motion was made. See Rollins, 862 F.2d 1289 (citation omitted). 58 In considering the defendants' request for a pre-trial hearing on this subject, the district court concluded that the defendants failed to present definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural facts to support their contention that the court must provide them with a hearing. The court stated: Defendants merely argue that an evidentiary hearing is required so that they can have an opportunity to cross-examine identification witnesses to determine what transpired during the out-of-court photographic identifications. United States v. Varela, 976 F. Supp. 1144, 1147 (N.D. Ill. 1997). The district court then, correctly, noted that the cross-examination desired by the defendants could be obtained without a pre-trial evidentiary hearing and that the Supreme Court in Watkins, 449 U.S. at 348-49, had concluded that cross-examination during trial was a sufficient vehicle for the defendants to cast doubt upon the reliability of the identifications. The court declined to grant the defendants' request for a pre-trial evidentiary hearing and concluded that the out-of-court identifications were admissible in a published opinion. See Varela, 976 F. Supp. at 1147. 59 Our examination of the defendants' motions 1 reveals that while the defendants argued for a hearing, they did not provide any specific facts that were in dispute. In fact, defendant Varela appears to have been under the mistaken belief that the government bore the burden as to showing issues of material fact as to this matter. He argued: Should the government contravene any factual assertion or inference drawn in this motion in its response, an evidentiary hearing at which witnesses may be cross examined must be held to permit this Court to determine what transpired during the identifications. It is a defendant's burden to establish these differences, not the government's. 60 As best as we can ascertain from the motions in the appellate record, the differences between the defendants' motions and the government's responses rest solely on the characterization of the facts and the Conclusions drawn from them. For example, the defendants argued in their motion that the victim-witnesses had little opportunity to view their captors. This statement is based on mere speculation because neither party disputes the fact that captors held the victim-witnesses for eight and nine days respectively. In addition, the defendants speculate that law enforcement officials told the victim-witnesses that suspects were being held in connection with the kidnappings before showing them the photo array in which the three suspects stood behind FBI placards. They present nothing to support this assertion. Finally, with regard to Ruiz's motion, the government in its response asserts that Ruiz misunderstood the police report and that the government and Ruiz's counsel were working to alleviate the problems. No further mention is made in regard to this problem, but it clearly does not amount to a disputed issue of material fact mandating the district court to hold a hearing. Thus, the defendants failed to provide a sufficient factual basis for its request of a pre-trial evidentiary hearing on this matter. 61 On appeal, the defendants take exception to several of the facts proffered by the government in its responses to these motions, claiming that the government failed to provide factual support for its statements. They assert that subsequent testimony during the trial showed these statements to be false. In reviewing the district court's decision, we consider the facts to which the district court was privy at the time of its ruling. We do not serve as Monday morning quarterbacks second-guessing the district court with information unavailable to it at the time it made its decision. Thus, these subsequent contentions are irrelevant to our review. Therefore, based on the information before the district court at the time it made its decision, we cannot conclude that the district court erroneously denied the defendants' request for a pre-trial evidentiary hearing.