Opinion ID: 795659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Show-Up Identification

Text: 20 Martinez argues that the introduction at trial of the results of the show-up identification violated his procedural due process rights because the procedure used was unduly suggestive and unreliable. A crime victim's identification of the defendant is admissible unless it is based upon a pretrial confrontation between the witness and the suspect that is both impermissibly suggestive and unreliable. United States v. King, 148 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir.1998) (internal quotation omitted). An identification is unreliable if its circumstances create `a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.' Id. (quoting Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir.1996)). Police officers need not limit themselves to station house line-ups when an opportunity for a quick, on-the-scene identification arises. Such identifications are essential to free innocent suspects and to inform the police if further investigation is necessary. Id. `[A]bsent special elements of unfairness, prompt on-the-scene confrontations do not entail due process violations.' Id. (quoting Russell v. United States, 408 F.2d 1280, 1284 (D.C.Cir.1969)) (alteration in original). 21 Though Martinez argues that the show-up was unduly suggestive because he was handcuffed, he had been driven to the bank in a police car, and because police officers were present, [n]ecessary incidents of on-the-scene identifications, such as the suspect[ ] being handcuffed and in police custody, do not render the identification procedure impermissibly suggestive. Id. Whether such factors cast doubt on the accuracy of a positive identification is an issue for the jury. Id. Given the facts in this case, we do not believe the show-up identification was unduly suggestive. Even if it was, we do not find that the circumstances created `a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification' because the teller's identification was reliable. Id. (quoting Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir.1996)). Given [the teller's] opportunity to clearly observe the robber[ ], [her] direct dealing with him at the time of the offense, [her] prior description of the robber[ ], the certainty of his identification, and the short time between the robbery and his identification, the show-up identification was reliable. United States v. Woody, 690 F.2d 678, 680 (8th Cir.1982) (holding that the show-up identification was reliable in spite of being unduly suggestive, and thus permissible). Therefore, admission at trial of the results of the show-up identification, as well as the subsequent identification of Martinez by the teller at trial, did not violate Martinez's procedural due process rights. King, 148 F.3d at 970.