Opinion ID: 3015489
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unreliable Identification

Text: An identification procedure that is unnecessarily suggestive and creates a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification violates due process. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 106 (1977). Unnecessary suggestiveness alone, however, does 6 not require the exclusion of evidence. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972). “A ‘suggestive and unnecessary identification procedure does not violate due process so long as the identification possesses sufficient aspects of reliability,’ for reliability is the ‘linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony.’” Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 106. As the Supreme Court explained in Biggers, in order to determine whether the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive, a court must apply a totality of the circumstances analysis. Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199. The court considers factors that include: the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ 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 confrontation. Id. at 199200. In Biggers, the Court enumerated and applied each of these factors, noting that the witness had ample opportunity to view the defendant, paid a high degree of attention, gave a detailed description of the defendant and was unequivocal in her identification. Id. at 200. The Court noted that several months had passed between the time of the crime and the identification, but reasoned that, weighing all the factors, there was no substantial likelihood of misidentification and that the evidence was properly allowed to go to the jury. Id. at 201. 7 Similarly, in Brathwaite, the Court enumerated and applied each of the Biggers factors to determine whether an identification from a single-photograph display was unreliable. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16. The Court noted that the witness looked directly at the defendant, who was in close proximity, paid a high degree of attention, gave a detailed and accurate description of the defendant within minutes of the transaction, and positively and unequivocally identified defendant’s photograph two days later. Id. at 114-15. The Court concluded that, given these factors, as well as the absence of any coercive pressure positively to identify the photograph, there was not a “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Id. at 116. We reached the opposite conclusion in a case on direct appeal, based on facts similar to the facts in this case, in United States v. Emanuele, 51 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1995). In Emanuele, the witnesses were bank tellers who observed a robbery. Both were unable to identify the robber from a photo array. Id. at 1126. The two witnesses were subpoenaed by the government to testify, and, while sitting outside the courtroom, saw the defendant being led from the courtroom in manacles by the U.S. Marshals. The two witnesses spoke with one another, saying “it has to be him.” Id. We examined the totality of the circumstances, applied the Biggers factors and noted that the confrontation between the witnesses and the manacled defendant was impermissibly suggestive. Id. at 1128-30. We concluded that the witnesses’ failure to identify the defendant despite the opportunity to observe, coupled with the impermissibly suggestive “viewing of the 8 defendant in conditions reeking of criminality, bolstered by the comments of another witness,” rendered the in-court identification unreliable. Id. at 1131. Here, the state court applied only one of the Biggers factors, the opportunity to observe, in determining whether Smoker’s identification of Lambert was reliable. The state court did not consider either Smoker’s confrontation with Lambert outside the courtroom at the pre-trial hearing or Smoker’s failure to select Lambert’s photograph from the photo array. As in Emanuele, Smoker’s failure to identify, on two separate occasions, Lambert’s photograph, coupled with the somewhat suggestive confrontation with Lambert, who was flanked by U.S. Marshals outside the courtroom prior to the pretrial hearing, suggests that Smoker’s in-court identification may have been unreliable. We are mindful, however, that this case is before us not on direct appeal, but rather, on appeal from the denial of a habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Applying the highly deferential standard of review established by AEDPA, we can reverse the district court’s denial of Lambert’s petition only if the state court opinion is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law of the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Price, 343 F.3d at 229 (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 405-407). Whether the state court opinion denying Lambert’s petition for post conviction relief meets that standard is a close question. It is also one that we need not reach, because we conclude that, even if the trial court erred in allowing Smoker’s incourt identification, the error was harmless. 9