Opinion ID: 2669163
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Suggestiveness of a Photo Array

Text: The police used a photo array to identify the Gen X robbers. Two of the victims identified a robber from the photographs, and the individual identified was Mr. Kepa Maumau. He argued that the array was unduly suggestive and that the district court should exclude the employees’ identifications. The district court concluded that the photo array was not unduly suggestive, and we agree. Even if it were, however, reversal would not be warranted in light of the reliability of the witnesses’ identifications. 62
When reviewing the admission of a photo array used to identify a defendant, we apply the clear-error standard to factual findings and engage in de novo review of due-process issues. United States v. Sanchez, 24 F.3d 1259, 1262 (10th Cir. 1994). When we review a defendant’s challenge to an identification from the photo array, we conduct a two-pronged inquiry. We first determine whether the photo array was unduly suggestive; if it is, we decide whether the identifications were still reliable in view of the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Wiseman, 172 F.3d 1196, 1208 (10th Cir. 1999). Ultimately, we must determine whether the unduly suggestive array created a “substantial likelihood of misidentification.” Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 201 (1972). If so, the defendant’s due-process rights have been violated. See Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977) (“[R]eliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony.”).
Under the first prong, we consider the number of photographs in the array, the way that the police present the array, and the details of the photographs. See Sanchez, 24 F.3d at 1262. Though we consider the number of photographs in the array, this factor goes to the “weight given to other alleged problems or 63 irregularities in an array”; the number is not itself a substantive factor. Id. (emphasis omitted). After police detectives viewed the Gen X surveillance video, they believed that the robbers were Kepa Maumau and Edward Kamoto. A police detective then created an array of six photographs to show the three Gen X employees who had seen the crime. Two of the three employees identified Mr. Kepa Maumau as the robber; the third was unable to make an identification. During the motion-to-suppress hearing, the Government called the detective who had created the array and shown the array to the employees. In response, Mr. Kepa Maumau called an expert, Dr. David Dodd, to testify about eyewitness reliability. Dr. Dodd testified that the “functional size” of the photo array was actually 1.7 photographs, rather than 6, based on a mock-photo array using 12 mock witnesses. 20 After hearing this testimony, the district court found that the array was not unduly suggestive. This finding did not involve clear error. First, we consider the size of the array: six photos. Though six is “a number sufficiently small to weigh heavily in the balance of factors to be 20 The mock witnesses were told the employees’ description of the suspect—Native American, medium build, early twenties, no facial hair, no scars or tattoos, and approximately five-feet, ten-inches tall. Then Dr. Dodd showed the mock witnesses the actual photo array used by the police detective. Seven of the twelve mock witnesses chose Mr. Kepa Maumau, and the remaining five chose the man in the fourth picture. Dr. Dodd reached the 1.7 size by dividing the total number of mock witnesses by the number that had chosen Mr. Kepa Maumau. 64 considered,” it does not create a “per se unconstitutional” array. Sanchez, 24 F.3d at 1262-63. 21 We also consider the presentation of the array. The district court found that the police detective had presented the photo array in a neutral manner, admonishing the witnesses not to identify anyone if they were unsure, telling them not to guess, and saying that they had no obligation to identify anyone. Kepa Maumau R. vol. 1, pt. 2, at 306-07. Mr. Kepa Maumau does not supply any reason to regard these findings as clearly erroneous. Finally, we consider the details of the photographs. The district court found that each photograph depicted a man in his early twenties with “medium complexion, medium build, no visible piercings, and most ha[d] little, if any, facial hair,” and none had “distinctive facial features or other identifying marks.” Id. at 306. The district court went on to acknowledge the difference in the facial features, but did not find the differences so “strikingly apparent” as to taint the display. Id. Again, Mr. Kepa Maumau does not supply grounds to regard the finding as clearly erroneous. 21 We have stated that the use of six-person photo arrays does not in itself lead to a finding of undue suggestiveness. E.g., Sanchez, 24 F.3d at 1263 (holding that an array with six photographs was not impermissibly suggestive); United States v. Franklin, 195 F. App’x 730, 734-35 (10th Cir. 2006) (concluding that a six-pack photo array was not unduly suggestive). 65 We agree with Mr. Kepa Maumau that the size of the photo array weighs in his favor. For three reasons, however, we reject his argument that the array was unduly suggestive based on differences in facial features and the others’ lack of facial hair. First, we have held that a difference in facial hair—even when the suspect was the only one with a beard and braided hair—did not render the photo array unduly suggestive. See United States v. Flores, 149 F.3d 1272, 1278-79 (10th Cir. 1998) (holding that a photo array was not unduly suggestive even though the suspect was the only person in the array with a goatee); United States v. Thurston, 771 F.2d 449, 453 (10th Cir. 1985) (concluding that a photo array was not unduly suggestive even though the defendant’s “picture was the only one among the display exhibits which had a beard”). Second, the actual robber had covered the bottom portion of his face during the Gen X robbery. Thus, the witnesses would lack any apparent reason to focus on a subject based on his facial hair (or lack of facial hair). Third, “a photo lineup is not necessarily suggestive merely because the individuals in the lineup differ in facial characteristics.” Grubbs v. Hannigan, 982 F.2d 1483, 1490 (10th Cir. 1993). In fact, even Mr. Kepa Maumau’s expert agreed that some variation among facial features was useful. See Kepa Maumau R. vol. 4, pt. 1, at 90 (Dr. Dodd’s testimony agreeing that “lineups should not be composed 66 of individuals who are too similar to one another” and that “some degree of variation among the individuals [was] desirable”). Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding that the array was not unduly suggestive.
Even if we were to conclude that the array was unduly suggestive, we would decline to reverse because the identifications were reliable. When a photo array is unduly suggestive, we consider whether it is sufficiently reliable to satisfy due process. See United States v. Sanchez, 24 F.3d 1259, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 1994). For reliability, the pertinent factors include: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the suspect during the crime, (2) the witness’s level of attention during the crime, (3) the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the suspect, (4) the level of certainty the witness demonstrated during the array, and (5) the time lapse between the crime and the array. See United States v. Wiseman, 172 F.3d 1196, 1210 (10th Cir. 1999). The employees’ identifications were sufficiently reliable even if we were to conclude that the array was unduly suggestive. Mr. Kepa Maumau makes three arguments on reliability: (1) The witnesses are Hispanic and he is Polynesian, making the identification problematic because it is “cross racial”; (2) the witnesses were unable to provide certain details of the robbers in their descriptions, such as eye color or facial shape; and (3) the 67 circumstances of the robbery made identification difficult because the event took place in only about a minute and multiple robbers were involved. We reject these arguments. Though the employees had only about a minute to observe the robbers, they were within eight feet. The employees were not only close, but also able to describe the robber with the gun as a Native American man in his early twenties with no scars, tattoos, or marks, with a medium build and approximately five-feet, ten-inches tall. And the employees viewed the array separately only about three months after the robbery. See Kepa Maumau R. vol. 4, pt. 1, at 17 (noting that the robbery took place in August 2008). Finally, two of the employees testified that they had recognized Mr. Maumau as someone who had previously visited the store. The witnesses’ identifications were reliable, and we would decline to reverse even if the photo array had been unduly suggestive.