Opinion ID: 2543636
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Instances When Witness Or Other Eyewitnesses Failed to Identify Defendant

Text: ¶ 53 This subfactor clearly favors the eyewitness identifications in this case. The trial court found the consistency with which the[] witnesses have identified Hollen as the masked robber to be quite remarkable. Indeed, Contreras identified Hollen from the photo array, at the in-person lineup, and at trial; Livolsi and Pittman identified Hollen at the in-person lineup and at trial; and Channing Jones identified Hollen when he saw him on television, from the photo array, and at trial. Peterson and Janae Jones, for their part, picked both Hollen and another person at the lineup, although both opined the other person was the assailant. Thus, four of the six witnesses to the robbery consistently identified Hollen as the disguised robber. ¶ 54 In contrast, only one of the three eyewitnesses in Ramirez was able to identify the defendant. Id. at 783.