Opinion ID: 199930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Identification of Ayala and Ortíz

Text: 20 Petty Officer Roberts testified that on April 28, 2001, he detained four people on the South Salinas Finger. Rather than identify those individuals in court, or testify to an out-of-court identification pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(C), Roberts simply stated that he recognized four photographs the prosecutor displayed to him as having been taken on April 28 in his presence. 12 Although appellants acknowledge that the thrust of this testimony was that the individuals in the photographs were the persons arrested on April 28 on the South Salinas Finger, they point out that Petty Officer Roberts never identified the individuals in the photographs. Instead, the prosecutor submitted the photographs to the court, with the explanation that Government Exhibit 9 is the photograph of Rafael Ayala-Ayala; No. 10 is that of Defendant Armando Torres-Ortiz. The district court overruled appellants' objection to the prosecutor's explanation. 21 Ayala and Ortíz argued in their Rule 29 motion that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that they were the individuals detained on the South Salinas Finger. 13 The court ruled that in-court identification was not required, [a]s long as there is evidence in the record that shows that the person that was arrested is the person that is being accused. 22 Identification of the defendant as the person who committed the charged crime is always an essential element which the government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in-court identification by a witness is not necessarily required. `Identification can be inferred from all the facts and circumstances that are in evidence.' United States v. Alexander, 48 F.3d 1477, 1490 (9th Cir.1995) (citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Weed, 689 F.2d 752, 754 (7th Cir.1982)). Petty Officer Roberts testified that the individuals he arrested on April 28 on the South Salinas Finger were those depicted in the photographs which the prosecutor submitted to the court. At the outset of the trial defense counsel had indicated to the court that she was appearing on behalf of Armando Torres-Ortiz and Rafael Ayala-Ayala. See Alexander, 48 F.3d at 1490 ([I]n-court identification is not necessary when the defendant's attorney himself identifies his client at trial.). The trial judge was therefore in a position to make the necessary identification finding based on a visual comparison of the photographs with the defendants in the courtroom. The evidence was sufficient to support a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendants Ayala and Ortíz were among those detained on the South Salinas Finger on April 28.