Opinion ID: 2457222
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The physical lineup

Text: Mr. Monk contends the physical lineup was unduly suggestive because the victim, again through her daughter, had access to information concerning the identity of the perpetrator. In addition, he contends the procedure was suggestive because he was the only person from the photospread who also appeared in the physical lineup. While it is possible the daughter could have told the victim that the victim had picked the suspect in the photospread, the only evidence Mr. Monk was able to present on the point was the victim's rather swift positive identification at the physical lineup. It is doubtful that the physical lineup was rendered impermissibly suggestive by the fact that Mr. Monk was the only man from the photospread to reappear in the second identification procedure. Detective Oberle testified that the men who appeared in the photospread were merely fillers, and that the use of their pictures did not necessarily indicate they were all in custody. Thus, he said that when the time came for the victim to view the physical lineup, he had to use fillers who were already in custody. Clearly, the appearance of different men in the second procedure was unavoidable. We observe from a picture of the physical lineup that the fillers all had similar physical characteristics to those of Everick Monk. No case has been cited in which we have dealt squarely with the question whether a less than positive, or look-alike, identification taints a subsequent identification as the result of the viewer's familiarity upon seeing in the flesh a person whose picture she has previously been shown. In State v. Neslo, 433 So.2d 73 (La.1983), a case similar to this one, the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the problem. Two victim-witnesses selected Neslo and another person in a photo lineup as persons who resembled the man who shot and shot at them and killed their friend. Later the victim-witnesses were shown a physical lineup including Neslo, and again two persons, one of them Neslo, were selected but not positively identified. Still later, the same lineup was reassembled, and the victim-witnesses identified Neslo as someone who looked like their assailant. In holding that the identification of Mr. Neslo was not unduly suggestive, the Louisiana Supreme Court said the procedure used was proper and indeed followed that suggested in Manson v. Brathwaite, supra . Emphasis was placed on the fact that in neither the photo lineup nor the physical one was there anything which made Mr. Neslo stand out. There was further discussion about the opportunity of the witnesses to view the suspect at the time the crime was committed, and both victim-witnesses said they were not influenced by the prior photo lineup in their reactions to the physical lineup. While no such testimony was given in Mr. Monk's trial, that is not very significant. The point is that the Louisiana Supreme Court was unwilling, as are we, to say that a progressive identification procedure which proceeds from photographs to physical is, per se, unduly suggestive. Of course, the jury had before it evidence that Mr. Monk's picture had been seen by the victim prior to the physical lineup in which he appeared. It also had before it evidence that the victim had in effect withdrawn the positive identifications she had made at the physical lineup and at the omnibus hearing thus reverting to a stance of uncertainty. In these circumstances the jury was placed in a position to evaluate the weakness or strength of the identification testimony, and we cannot say the Trial Court abused his discretion in admitting the evidence.