Opinion ID: 324559
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the lineup identification

Text: 13 Appellant next complains of the lineup at which, following the photographic presentation, he was again identified by Ms. Butler before trial. The contention is that the lineup was impermissibly suggestive because he was the only one in the lineup with a bush hairstyle. The initial inquiry here is whether the lineup 'was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that he was denied due process of law.' 41 If suggestive but not unconstitutionally so, 42 the further inquiry is 'whether under 'the totality of the circumstances' the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive.' 43 Our answers to both questions are in the negative. 14 Shortly after the robbery, Ms. Butler described the armed robber as 'a Negro male, late 20's, five-foot-ten stocky build, medium complexion, bush haircut dark clothing.' 44 In the challenged lineup were eleven black males who, though generally of similar appearance, nonetheless presented the viewer with some range of variation. Between the shortest and the tallest was a difference of about eight inches; eight in the line-up, including appellant, were within approximately four inches of equal height. None was unusually slender or abnormally stout, but there were differences in build. None seemed particularly young or particularly old, but it was manifest that they were not all of the same age. None had a distinctly heavy beard, but some had facial hair and some did not, and haircuts diverged considerably. In this context, we think it clear, as the trial judge concluded, 45 that appellant's bush hairstyle was not 'so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification' as to amount to a constitutional violation. 46 15 Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the hairstyle was in some degree suggestive, we cannot believe that it so distinctively marked him as to generate a substantial likelihood of misidentification. 47 In Neil v. Biggers, 48 the Supreme Court instructed that 16 the factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. 49 17 Ms. Butler observed the robber bearing the shotgun over a period of fifteen or twenty minutes, 50 throughout which she was in close proximity to the gunman-- sometimes face-to-face. 51 During a good part of the time the lighting conditions were good, 52 and Ms. Butler had good reason to remember her assailant. 53 After her ordeal was over, she was able to give the police a reasonably accurate description of the gunman, 54 and her successive identifications of appellant were consistent and invariably emphatic. In 'the totality of the circumstances' 55 we discern no ground for doubting the reliability of the lineup identifications. 56 We accordingly sustain the trial judge's conclusion that the lineup was constitutionally fair, 57 and his action in admitting testimony of the lineup identification at trial.