Opinion ID: 1406967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the fairness of the lineup

Text: We next consider the Circle M lineup in light of Blue's contention that the lineup was prejudicial and suggestive. The test we apply to the resolution of this issue is whether the lineup procedures were so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive as to deny due process, the determination must be made based on the totality of the circumstances. [13] Viewing the totality of the circumstances in this case, we cannot say that the lineup at the Circle M violated Blue's right to due process. Blue does not attack the fairness of the lineup based on its suggestiveness given the physical characteristics of other members of the lineup. Significantly, the lineup included other tall men, all dressed in a similar fashion. Blue's attack focuses on the fact that Blue was the only tall person seated at the table with Benefield, the co-defendant. Since Ms. Nickens, the eyewitness, was looking for Benefield and recognized him immediately, the proximity of Blue to Benefield is argued to have been suggestive. Under the facts of this case, we need not determine whether one defendant's proximity to another would ever be so suggestive as to violate due process. Here, the evidence shows that although Benefield and Blue were the only ones seated at the table, there were four people sitting close to Benefield. Furthermore, Blue could not be identified by Ms. Nickens when he was seated next to Benefield. It was not until later when all were asked to stand that the witness identified Blue as the other robber. Here, in addition to his appearance, the identification was based on the way Blue stood and moved. There is no argument made that Blue was placed next to Benefield in the standing lineup. While we think that the better practice is to avoid placing co-defendants in close proximity, we cannot say that under the totality of circumstances of this case, the lineup was so suggestive as to violate due process.