Opinion ID: 320437
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Independent Source for the In-Court Identifications

Text: 10 The trial judge's ruling that the five eyewitnesses could identify appellant in court was proper if 'the Government . . . establish(ed) by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identifications were based upon observations other than the lineup identification.' 10 The finding by the trial court that the eyewitnesses' in-court identifications were based on an independent source is entitled to great deference on appeal, 11 particularly since the trial court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and thereby assess their credibility and reliability. 12 Upon examination of the record, 13 we can find no basis for overturning the trial court's ruling. 11 The record reveals that the five eyewitnesses who identified appellant at trial had excellent opportunities to observe him during the course of the robbery. Appellant wore no mask to obscure his features. 14 The Post Office was illuminated by flourescent lighting, which was described as 'very good.' 15 Behind the counters, in the area where appellant was operating during most of the robbery, there were no screens or barriers to obstruct the employees' views. 16 Appellant was in the building for a period of from five to seven minutes. 17 When Myrick led appellant to the Post Office safes, he spent approximately three minutes either 'side-by-side' or 'eyeball to eyeball' with appellant. 18 Appellant rifled Mrs. Taylor's cash drawer while she stood 'right beside' him, 19 and he warned her that 'if (she) continued to look at him he would shoot (her).' 20 McGriff testified that appellant was in his presence for three or four minutes during the robbery 21 and that he got a good look at appellant's face from a distance of about ten feet. 22 Baylor had an unobstructed view of appellant from about fifteen feet away. 23 Johnson remembered appellant as one of the men who 'came over the counter and was taking the money from the cash drawers' 24 and testified that his opportunity to view appellant lasted three or four minutes. 25 The excellent opportunities that the five identification witnesses had to observe appellant during the robbery were clearly sufficient to provide a solid basis for identification despite any later taint created by the suggestive pretrial lineups. 26 12 United States v. Wade 27 listed several other factors bearing on whether an incourt identification is fatally tainted by a prior unlawful lineup. These factors, 28 and their application to the case at bar, are as follows: 13 (1) 'the existence of any discrepancy between any pre-lineup description and the defendant's actual description'; (Here, the witnesses apparently described appellant fairly accurately to police on the day of the robbery. The descriptions varied slightly in details, but they generally depicted appellant as around 5'-11' or taller, tanor brown-skinned, and slim in build.) 29 (2) 'any identification prior to lineup of another person'; (None of the witnesses made such an identification in the case at bar.) (3) 'the identification by picture of the defendant prior to the lineup'; (Three of the witnesses did make prelineup photographic identifications of appellant. The impact of those identifications here is discussed in Part III infra.) (4) 'failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion'; (No such failure occurred here.) (5) 'the lapse of time between the alleged act and the lineup identification.' (The lineups were held on 4 and 11 February 1971, 14 and 21 days, respectively, after the robbery. During the lapse between the crime and the first lineup, it is unlikely that the witnesses' recollections of appellant's description became so dim that the suggestive lineups overcame those recollections.) 14 Thus, the possibility that the eyewitnesses' in-court identifications of appellant were tainted by the lineup identifications seems slight when the Wade criteria are applied. 15 In light of the foregoing, we can only conclude that appellant was not deprived of due process by the trial court's ruling that the five eyewitnesses could identify appellant at trial. 16