Opinion ID: 672848
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Use of an Improper Identification Procedure

Text: 3 On January 3, 1992, undercover police officers Leslie Russell and Donita Giles approached a man, later identified as Thompson, and indicated their interest in buying $20 worth of cocaine base. Thompson took the undercover officers to another person, Anthony Carter, and told Carter to hold them. Thompson then got into the driver's seat of a burgundy Nissan automobile and reached down for something. When he came back, he produced a black film cannister that contained some Ziploc bags. He handed a bag to Officer Russell in exchange for a pre-recorded $20 bill, and told Russell that if she wanted any more, she should just come back and ask for Nissan. 4 To preserve their ability to make undercover buys in the future, the officers did not themselves arrest the two men. Instead, Officer Russell broadcast a lookout for the pair. Minutes later police stopped a group of three men, two of whom matched the descriptions in the lookout. The undercover officers then drove by slowly and Officer Russell identified Carter and Thompson as the men who had been in on the sale. A search revealed that Thompson was carrying the pre-recorded $20 bill and a set of Nissan keys; the keys fit a burgundy Nissan Maxima that was parked a few vehicles away from the scene of the transaction. Twenty-eight Ziplocs containing a total of 7.225 grams of cocaine base were found in the fuse box, located at knee level to the left of the steering column. The police also found, on the sidewalk where the men had been stopped, a black film cannister with 2.71 grams of cocaine base distributed among 13 Ziplocs. 5 At trial, both Russell and Giles gave in-court identifications of Thompson as the man who had sold Russell the cocaine base. Thompson now argues, however, that a new trial is necessary because these in-court identifications should never have been admitted. On cross-examination, both officers acknowledged that they had seen Thompson's arrest photograph in preparation for their testimony; though Russell was not asked for the surrounding details, Giles testified that the prosecutor had shown her the picture and that she had not seen any other photographs on that occasion. Thompson contends that this constituted an unduly suggestive identification procedure, creating such a risk of misidentification at trial that due process requires the reversal of his convictions. See generally Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 196-201, 93 S.Ct. 375, 380-383, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). 6 Though the relevant facts had been elicited in cross-examination of the government's witnesses on the first day of trial, Thompson did not raise this argument in the trial court until after the jury found him guilty, when he filed a motion for a new trial. Thompson nonetheless argues that we should review the issue as if he had raised a timely objection, because the trial court ruled on the issue in the context of the post-verdict motion. For purposes of determining our standard of review of an alleged error in admission of evidence, however, a post-verdict motion for a new trial is not the same as a timely objection: the delay eliminates any chance that the judge could correct the error without a duplicative trial, and according review as if a timely objection had been raised virtually invites strategic behavior by defense counsel. See, e.g., United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283, 287 (D.C.Cir.1994). Thus we review only for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Breque, 964 F.2d 381, 387 n. 7 (5th Cir.1992). In fact, the scope of review makes no difference here, as we do not think that the admission of the in-court identifications was error at all, let alone the obvious and prejudicial error required under plain-error standards. See generally United States v. Olano, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1778, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). 7 It is quite a stretch to portray what happened during pre-trial preparation as an identification procedure. Russell, in fact, had made a drive-by identification of Thompson minutes after he had been arrested, well before the allegedly suggestive photo display. Under fairly similar circumstances, we have found nothing improper in later showing such a witness a photograph to refresh her recollection. See United States v. Marshall, 511 F.2d 1308, 1311 (D.C.Cir.1975). To be sure, this technique may well make the witness seem more confident when she identifies the defendant in court. But the same can be said of every technique used to refresh a witness's recollection during pre-trial preparations. 8 In any event, Russell's sighting of the photo while preparing for her testimony carried no significant risk of causing any misidentification, and so even if it was improper it would not preclude her in-court identification of Thompson. Cf. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). In one sense, indeed, the photo gave her no information that she would not have acquired as soon as she took the witness stand at trial, for she testified on cross-examination that she knew where criminal defendants sit. More important, the key identification was the drive-by; unless Thompson could shake the validity of that, he could not raise a serious identity issue (unless the Thompson in court was different from the Thompson who was arrested, which he does not claim). And Russell's exposure to Thompson's arrest photo in trial preparation could have had only the most remote effect on the credibility of her testimony about the events leading up to the drive-by. 9 Officer Giles was not in quite the same position as Officer Russell. While Giles testified that she too had recognized Thompson during the drive-by, she said she did not voice her identification at the time because [i]t was not [her] purchase. But this difference is immaterial unless her exposure to the photograph would in some way have been more likely to affect the credibility of her account of the drive-by than Russell's exposure would have affected hers. We find no error in the admission of the in-court identifications.