Opinion ID: 2543459
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of the Law to the Out of Court Identification in this Case

Text: In this case, Bernal argues that his due process rights were violated by the admission of testimony concerning an impermissibly suggestive photo array. The determination of whether there was a violation of Bernal's due process rights requires the application of the two-part analysis described above. Under the first part of the analysis, Bernal challenges the photographs themselves, arguing that they are impermissibly suggestive because, of the six men shown, he was the only obviously Hispanic man. Our examination of the photo array reveals it to be impermissibly suggestive. Our review of the record indicates that ethnicity was a controlling and overriding characteristic of the witnesses' description of the robber. In their initial descriptions to the police immediately after the robbery, none of the witnesses provided any sort of detailed description of the robber. Rather, their description was based on race and ethnicity: Both eyewitnesses stated that the robber was Hispanic. [6] The ethnicities of most of the other men in the photo array are conspicuously different, specifically not Hispanic, so as to make the defendant's photo stand out as clearly different from the others. Although it has been suggested that one of the men shown with Bernal could possibly have been Hispanic, in the context of the descriptions given by the eyewitnesses in this case, this photograph is not similar to Bernal's. In this case, the witnesses chose to use the term Hispanic. Because the term Hispanic can refer to people with different skin colors, eye colors, and hair colors, and even to people of different races, it might be considered to be a poor descriptive term. See generally Kevin R. Johnson, Race, Ethnicity & Nationhood: Melting Pot or `Ring of Fire'?: Assimilation and the Mexican American Experience, 85 Cal. L. Rev. 1259, 1291-92 (1997). However, when a witness uses the term Hispanic to describe a suspect it may reasonably be presumed that she is using that term to denote a person with discernable and distinctive physical characteristics that comprise the stereotype of an Hispanic individual. Here, only Bernal's photograph is stereotypical. Although we disagree with the use of such stereotypes to homogenize what in reality is a multi-racial, diverse population, it is undisputed that the term Hispanic is used as a descriptive term and has, in essence, reduced this diverse group of individuals into one group. See Wendy Chung, Ethnicity and Organizational Diversity: A Study of Social Cognition and Psychological Climate Perception 59 (1997). Specifically, the stereotype has been described as dark-complexioned with more indigenous features. Johnson, supra, at 1290-91. Some courts have described the stereotypical characteristics of someone who is Hispanic as black hair, dark skin, and dark eyes. Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1038 (9th Cir.1999); see also, e.g., United States v. Ramos, 753 F.Supp. 75, 76 (W.D.N.Y.1990) (light brown skin); People v. Gonzalez, 292 Ill.App.3d 280, 226 Ill.Dec. 406, 685 N.E.2d 661, 663 (1997) (light brown skin, dark brown hair, and dark eyes); State v. Mareno, 530 So.2d 593, 595 (La.Ct.App.1988) (a `kind of Hispanic appearance' described as an individual 5'7-5'8, with an olive complexion, medium build, [and] brown hair). Thus, although the photo array may not be perceived as suggestive to someone who is aware of the diversity of individuals in the Hispanic population, it is highly suggestive to a person who chooses to describe a person as Hispanic in the stereotypical sense of describing what many people consider a monolithic group. See Johnson, supra, at 1290. Here, there is nothing to suggest that the witnesses meant anything other than the commonly understood, stereotypical characteristics of an Hispanic individual. Thus, we infer that Hispanic, as used by the two eyewitnesses, was meant to describe the features of people of Mexican heritage, the predominant Hispanic population in the southwestern United States. See Ramos, 753 F.Supp. at 78 n. 5 (It is apparent that appearing Mexican is the functional equivalent of appearing Hispanic.). The stark fact is that Bernal leaps out as the one person who is different because of his ethnicity, a judgment that can be made even without knowledge of what the witnesses said. In addition, Bernal's photograph was the only one with a clear white background. The other photographs were taken against neutrally colored venetian blinds. This seemingly minor detail of the background compounds the already-mentioned deficiencies of the photo array because, as noted in Sanchez, the likely inference that Bernal's picture was taken under different circumstances suggests that the other photos were assembled to provide a pool or control group, as indeed they were. Wiseman, 172 F.3d at 1209. Moreover, the small number of photos in the array, which in this case consisted of six, cannot dilute the suggestiveness of the array. Id. For these reasons, we conclude that the photo lineup is impermissibly suggestive. Having found the pretrial identification procedure to be impermissibly suggestive, we must next proceed to the second step of the analysis, namely a determination whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification was nonetheless reliable. This determination involves consideration of the five factors identified by the Supreme Court in Biggers. Manson, 432 U.S. at 114, 97 S.Ct. 2243; Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199, 93 S.Ct. 375. As to the first two Biggers factors, the record is fairly well developed because these factors were pertinent to issues raised at trial. Thus, regarding the first Biggers factor, the opportunity of the witnesses to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the evidence showed that the robbery lasted several minutes and took place in a well-lighted area. However, there was also evidence that the robber was behind McBride during most of the robbery, and that McBride only got slight glances of the robber. In addition, the robber concealed his appearance with a baseball hat and sunglasses. With regard to the second Biggers factor, the witnesses' degree of attention, the evidence showed that the witnesses had received training regarding robberies. In this case, however, the witnesses were instructed not to look at the robber, and when they did, he struck them with his weapon. As to the rest of the Biggers factors, because the trial court failed to hear the offered testimony, the record is inadequate. Thus, regarding the third Biggers factor, the accuracy of the witnesses' prior description, the witnesses' initial descriptions to the police were very general. The witnesses described the robbers as roughly the same height, medium complexion, and Hispanic. Wagner also described the robber as having a rough complexion. Because the witnesses were not allowed to testify at the suppression hearing, it is unclear what they meant by the term Hispanic. In addition, there is nearly a foot of difference between the height of the two men arrested for the robbery. Rodarte measures five feet two inches tall, while Bernal is over six feet tall. And, contrary to Wagner's description, Bernal does not have a rough complexion. In fact, he was described as having a very nice complexion. Concerning the fourth Biggers factor, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witnesses at the confrontation, it is unclear what the witnesses' degree of certainty was when they chose Bernal's photograph. At the suppression hearing, Grose testified that the witnesses stated that they had made a positive identification. When defense counsel attempted to question Grose regarding the witnesses' level of certainty, the trial court intervened and refused to permit Grose to testify, stating: They can't be any better than positive I don't think. The evidence only showed that Wagner chose Bernal's photograph after examining the array for two minutes and that McBride spent one minute reviewing the array before choosing Bernal. Finally, with regard to the last Biggers factor, the length of time between the crime and the confrontation, there was a six-week gap between the robbery and the photo array. Again, because the witnesses were not allowed to give testimony, it is unclear how much weight should be placed upon this fact. Given that the trial court failed to hear testimony and failed to make adequate factual findings, we cannot complete the review necessary to determine whether the out-of-court identification is, despite its suggestiveness, reliable. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for a reliability determination. Upon remand, the trial court, in determining the reliability of the out-of-court identification, should not limit itself to the specific evidence we have just discussed. Instead, the court should, in addition to the above evidence, consider any new testimony that may be offered that it finds pertinent to the Biggers factors. For example, the trial court might inquire as to what the witnesses meant when they used the term Hispanic to describe the robber and whether they would describe any of the other five men depicted in the photo array as Hispanic.