Opinion ID: 589395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pretrial Identification Procedure

Text: 7 Henderson and Stewart both argue that the field show-up violated due process because it was unnecessarily suggestive and that the resulting identifications were unreliable. We examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether an identification procedure is so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of mistaken identification, thereby denying a defendant due process of law. United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482, 492 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1023, 106 S.Ct. 1215, 89 L.Ed.2d 326 (1986); United States v. Kessler, 692 F.2d 584, 585 (9th Cir.1982). The show-up procedure in this case does not appear to have been impermissibly suggestive. Bagley, 772 F.2d at 492-93; Kessler, 692 F.2d at 586. 8 Even if the identification procedure were impermissibly suggestive, the identification testimony may properly be admitted into evidence if under the totality of the circumstances the identification is sufficiently reliable. Bagley, 772 F.2d at 492; Ponce v. Cupp, 735 F.2d 333, 336 (9th Cir.1984). Our review of the record satisfies us that Stewart was reliably identified by both Bougher and Lozano. Moreover, the identification of Henderson by Bougher was reliable. 1 9