Opinion ID: 2832674
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the manner of presentation by the officers.

Text: United States v. Sanchez, 24 F.3d 1259, 1262 (10th Cir. 1994). We apply the clear-error standard to findings involving suggestiveness of a photo array. See United States v. Kamahele, 748 F.3d 984, 1018 (10th Cir. 2014) (concluding that the district court did not clearly err by discounting facial irregularities or concluding that the array had been presented in a neutral manner); United States v. Wiseman, 172 F.3d 1196, 1209–10 (10th Cir. 1999) (characterizing as factual a district court’s conclusion that a photo array was not overly suggestive). The number of photographs affects how the other two factors are evaluated. Id. In this case, four photographic arrays were used, three containing six photographs and one containing twelve. See Supp. R., vol. I, at 3, 16–19. 14
Mr. Worku alleges the six-photograph arrays suffer from three problems: 1. There are irregularities between the photographs. 2. The photographs were presented as a composite. 3. The witnesses were not properly admonished. In six-photograph arrays, significant weight is given to irregularities. United States v. Wiseman, 172 F.3d 1196, 1209 (10th Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds, Rosemond v. United States, __ U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014); Sanchez, 24 F.3d at 1262. Mr. Worku identifies three irregularities in the six-photograph arrays:  Lighting: Mr. Worku’s picture is the brightest and clearest (the newest looking) in two of the arrays. And in the third array, his photo is heavily shadowed and dark compared to the other photos.  Facial Hair: There were only two individuals without facial hair, and only one had hair on his head.  Clothing: Mr. Worku is the only member of the array wearing a large hooded winter jacket. In our view, however, the district court did not clearly err by discounting these irregularities. Mr. Worku complains that the lighting in his photograph is different from the lighting in the other photographs. We agree that in the arrays, the lighting is slightly different for Mr. Worku’s photograph and some of the 15 other photographs. But all are color photographs and depict Ethiopian men of similar ages. With these similarities among the men depicted, the court  had the discretion to conclude that the differences in lighting would not have suggested which photograph to pick and  did not clearly err by concluding that no particular individual stuck out within the array. See United States v. Bautista, 23 F.3d 726, 731 (2d Cir. 1994) (holding that the photo array was not overly suggestive even though the defendant’s photograph was brighter and more close-up than the five other photos). The same is true of the differences in facial hair and clothing. In other cases, we have held that differences in facial hair do not render photo arrays overly suggestive. See United States v. Kamahele, 748 F.3d 984, 1020 (10th Cir. 2014) (“[W]e have held that a difference in facial hair―even when the suspect was the only one with a beard and one with a beard and braided hair―did not render the photo array unduly suggestive.”). And other circuits have held that differences in clothing do not render a photo array unduly suggestive. Briscoe v. Cnty. of St. Louis, 690 F.3d 1004, 1013 (8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Brennick, 405 F.3d 96, 99 (1st Cir. 2005). The differences in facial hair and clothing could be downplayed because of the passage of over 30 years from the sightings to the photo arrays. Over this period of time, the suspect’s facial hair and clothing would likely have changed. Thus, in viewing the photos, the victims likely 16 would have focused on the individuals’ faces rather than their facial hair or clothing. See Harker v. Maryland, 800 F.2d 437, 444 (4th Cir. 1986) (rejecting a challenge to an identification based on differences in clothing because “facial features, rather than clothing, appear to have been more important to the identification in this case”). In these circumstances, the district court did not clearly err by concluding that Mr. Worku had not stood out in the photo array. In addition, Mr. Worku argues the arrays were overly suggestive because they had been presented as a composite. In rejecting this argument, the district court determined that there had been “no evidence” about the greater reliability of sequential presentations. R., vol. V, at 121. Although the judge recognized that some studies suggest that sequential presentation enhances reliability, these studies had not been presented. Thus, the district court’s rejection of this argument did not constitute clear error. Mr. Worku also alleges that the officers failed to provide the witnesses with department-policy admonitions before the witnesses viewed the arrays. The court reviewed the manner of presentation to the witnesses, concluding that it was “neither suggestive nor intrusive nor intimidating.” R., vol. V., at 122. Mr. Worku has not shown a clear error. In sum, the district court did not clearly err in evaluating the suggestiveness of the six-photograph arrays. 17
Mr. Worku argues that the same problems plague the twelve-photo array: irregularities in the photographs, composite presentation, and lack of admonitions. The alleged problems in the twelve-photograph array are no more acute than they were in the six-photograph arrays, and we have already concluded that the alleged problems in the six-photograph arrays did not create a due process violation. Because there were twice as many pictures in the twelve-photograph array, this array is even less problematic. See United States v. Sanchez, 24 F.3d 1259, 1262 (10th Cir. 1994) (reasoning that irregularities have greater impact when there is a smaller group of photos). Therefore, the district court did not clearly err by concluding that the twelve-photograph array had not been impermissibly suggestive.