Opinion ID: 774020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Raheem's Second Trial

Text: 69 At Raheem's second trial, held in 1981, Cooke and Shiloh again identified Raheem as the shooter. Moore and Hayward were unable to identify Raheem. Moore, for example, when asked whether he had gotten a look at the face of the man who shot Hill in January 1976, said, No, not too good. I can't really say I did. (Second Trial Tr. 208.) 70 Q.... [D]o you see that man in court today? Would you look around, please, and tell me if you can see him. 71 A. I can't really identify him. I can't really say that's him [indicating Raheem] in all honesty. 72 Q. Do you see anybody who resembles him, who looks familiar [sic] to him? 73 .... 74 A. It could be him [indicating Raheem], and then it couldn't be him. 75 (Second Trial Tr. 209.) Hayward, who had been sitting next to Hill when Hill was shot, similarly was asked to look around the courtroom to see if he recognized the shooter. He indicated that he did not. 76 Cooke testified that on January 4, 1976, he had frequently glanced at Hill and the stranger near Hill and that he had no doubt Raheem was the man who shot Hill. When cross-examined as to whether he had recognized Raheem in the lineup only by his face, Cooke said, [h]is face and his clothes (Second Trial Tr. 194), and that he remembered a black leather coat (id.). Shiloh similarly identified Raheem as the shooter, saying that on the night of the robbery, Raheem had appeared to be a very neat young man, dressed very neat, and he looked just like any other person who was dressed real neat (Second Trial Tr. 110). Shiloh described what led him to recognize Raheem at the lineup: 77 Q. All right. Now, when you--when you looked at Mr. Whitaker the first time in the lineup did you notice what he was wearing? 78 A. He had a black leather coat. 79 Q. And how would you describe his over all appearance when you looked at him the first time in the lineup? 80 A. Still a neat person. 81 .... 82 Q. And did you notice these things the first time you looked at the lineup? 83 A. I did, yes, I did. 84 Q. Okay. But you didn't identify him at that time? 85 A. No. 86 Q. Now, what was it that made you want to go back and look again? 87 A. His face and his black leather coat. 88 Q. And did you recognize the face? 89 A. [Y]es. 90 Q. And when you went back the second time to look at the lineup, what did you look at?A. I looked at his face and that black leather coat. 91 Q. And did you recognize the face? 92 A. Yes. 93 (Second Trial Tr. 110-11 (emphases added).) 94 The prosecution presented no other evidence to connect Raheem with the events at the Moulin Rouge. Although some fingerprints and a palm print had been collected from the bar and the getaway car, none matched the prints of Raheem. And although Moore testified that Hill, when shot, fell backwards onto the shooter and, because an artery had been hit, got quite a bit of blood on the shooter's coat (Second Trial Tr. 213-14), there was no evidence at trial of any bloodstain residue on the coat owned by Raheem. Indeed, the police detective who had headed the investigation and ordered forensic examination of the Moulin Rouge and other items testified that he did not recall any scientific tests being made on Raheem's coat. (Second Trial Tr. 268-69, 276.) The jury again found Raheem guilty. 95 Raheem again appealed, renewing his contention, inter alia, that the identifications of him were the product of an unconstitutionally suggestive lineup. The Appellate Division, though modifying Raheem's sentence, found, without discussion, that the constitutional challenge was without merit, People v. Whitaker, 97 A.D.2d 555, 555, 468 N.Y.S.2d 168, 169 (2d Dep't 1983) (Whitaker/RaheemII). Leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was granted; but as to the merits of Raheem's challenge to the identifications, that court stated that [t]he lower court's determination that the lineup was not suggestive involves a mixed question of law and fact which is supported by the record and thus is beyond review in this court. People v. Whitaker, 64N.Y.2d 347, 351 n., 486 N.Y.S.2d 895, 897 n. (1985) (Whitaker/RaheemIII).