Opinion ID: 42471
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Photographic Lineup

Text: We review for clear error the district court’s decision that an identification procedure was not unduly suggestive. Cikora v. Dugger, 840 F.2d 893, 895-96 (11th Cir. 1988). Smith contends that the photographic lineup was unduly suggestive because 1) Smith was the only person presented in front of a cinder block background; 2) Smith wore a blue T-shirt -- in contrast to four of the other six people photographed -- and the robber was alleged to have worn a blue T-shirt; 3) the 10 Smith improperly characterizes this Court's opinion in the earlier Smith case as a mandate, rather than a suggestion, that a trial court can instruct the jury about the considerations impacting on the reliability of eyewitness identification. In denying a defendant's expert on eyewitness testimony, we suggested in Smith that possible problems with eyewitness testimony can be -- and in that case were (although from the appellate opinion, we do not know in what detail) -- highlighted through jury instructions. United States v. Smith, 122 F.3d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir. 1997). But, we have never mandated such instructions as part of the law of the Circuit, and it was not, on that account, an abuse of discretion for the district court in this case to deny the requested instruction. 14 officer told witness Davis that the suspect was in the lineup; and 4) the officer conducting the lineup was the lead detective on the case (and therefore potentially gave non-verbal cues). A lineup is not unduly suggestive merely because the defendant’s photograph can be distinguished from the others. See Cickora, 840 F.2d at 896-97 (district court did not clearly err by admitting identification resulting from lineup where only defendant’s photo had height markings in the background and the defendant was a different race than several other persons photographed). In addition, we have concluded that a lineup was not suggestive where the witnesses were told that the suspect was in the lineup. Id. And, here, we note that -- other than alleging the potential for an officer who knows which photograph contains the suspect to provide non-verbal cues -- Smith has presented no evidence of specific gestures or signals that the officer gave that influenced the identification. Moreover, upon our reviewing the actual pictures used, we agree with the magistrate judge that the men in the lineup had “substantial similarity in facial features, complexion, facial hair, and general body type and appearance.” Therefore, we conclude that the district court was correct in determining that the lineup was not unduly suggestive. 15