Opinion ID: 577182
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Photospreads

Text: 34 At trial the Government introduced two photospreads of six photographs each, from which the complainant originally had identified each of the defendants as her assailants. Defense counsel objected and the Assistant United States Attorney responded that the Government was entitled to show a prior identification by the victim where they've attacked her credibility. The court indicated that it would accept the photospreads for that purpose and agreed with the United States that identification was admissible as non-hearsay. The defense restated its objection after the pictures were identified and were admitted into evidence, and thus properly preserved the issue for appeal. 35 As we noted above, trial court rulings on the admissibility of evidence receive strong deference on appellate review and will be overturned only for an abuse of discretion. For the reasons discussed below, however, we conclude that admission of these photographs was an abuse of discretion. 36 The Government argues that the photospreads were relevant to its case because identification is always an issue, and because the fact that the complainant went through the effort of going to the police station and identifying the defendants was relevant to demonstrating her credibility. The Government also notes that a prior identification of a defendant from a photo is specifically admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, F.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C). 37 The Government's argument is flawed for several reasons. First, even though evidence is considered specifically admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, it still may be excluded if it is unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. 4 Although there is no binding precedent in this circuit, other circuits have considered the admissibility of photospreads and have applied very strict standards for how and when such evidence may be admitted. The reason is clear: Photospreads, or mugshots carry a clear implication of criminal activity that breaches the rule against admitting evidence of the defendant's bad character or previous brushes with the law. See Barnes v. United States, 365 F.2d 509, 510 (D.C.Cir.1966) (noting the prejudicial effect of mugshots), United States v. Reed, 376 F.2d 226, 228 n. 2 (7th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 984, 89 S.Ct. 457, 21 L.Ed.2d 445 (1968) (same). 38 The Fifth Circuit recently dealt with this issue in United States v. Torres-Flores, 827 F.2d 1031 (5th Cir.1987), and applied the three-factor analysis first set forth by Judge Tuttle, sitting by designation, in United States v. Fosher, 568 F.2d 207 (1st Cir.1978). The Torres-Flores court held that unless the Government met the following standards, the introduction of mugshots would be reversible error: 39 1. The Government must have a demonstrable need to introduce the photographs; and 40 2. The photographs themselves, if shown to the jury, must not imply that the defendant has a prior criminal record; and 41 3. The manner of introduction at trial must be such that it does not draw particular attention to the source or implications of the photographs. 42 Torres-Flores, 827 F.2d at 1037. We will apply this three-factor test to the facts of this case. 1. Demonstrable Need for the Photographs 43 The Government had no demonstrable need to introduce these photographs because the identity of the defendants was never at issue. From the opening statement, throughout trial testimony, and again during closing arguments, the defense made quite clear that they were relying on the issue of consent alone. The Government notes that at the initial police interview both Crenshaw and Hines originally denied knowing the complainant, and argues that the defendants relied on consent as a defense only because of the positive identification by the complainant. This argument carries no weight. The Government was free to bring up the defendants' changed story at trial--and did so--but identification of Crenshaw and Hines was never at issue once the trial began. 2. Implication of Prior Criminal Record 44 The Government seeks to characterize the photospreads as completely innocuous and unlikely to lead to any inference of criminal activity. The argument is belied by the pictures themselves: Photospread 1: 45 --In five of the six photos, the men are holding what appear to be identification boards; on one of them (# 1), the words Hinesville Police Dept. are clearly visible, and in another (# 3), the word Hinesville is fairly visible; 46 --Two of the men, including Crenshaw, are wearing identical orange uniforms that are clearly institutional garb; 47 --The photospread was presented to the jury in a folder marked in capital letters and bold print  'MUG' SHOW-UP FOLDER. Photospread 2: 48 --Although the words Hinesville Police Dept. are not visible in any of these photos, it is clear that three of the men are holding identification boards; 49 --One of the men (# 1) is dressed in institutional garb; 50 --In four of the photos, including the one of Hines (# 3), there is a yardstick clearly visible in the background, which is obviously for noting the subject's height. 51 The Government argues that because the notation Hinesville Police Dept. was not explicit on the photos of the defendants themselves, and that no prior offenses or other criminal identification numbers are present, there could be no inference of prior criminal activity. This analysis flies against basic common sense. The group of photos taken as a whole conveys an image of a collection from a rogues' gallery and at least five of the six photographs in each of the two photospreads--including those of the defendants--clearly indicate that the subjects were in law enforcement custody. 3. Manner of Introduction 52 SA Gabriel's testimony highlighted the fact that the photos were of known criminals and convicts, and heightened their prejudicial nature: 53 Once we were at the Hinesville Police Department, Detective Reid and I went into their closed files and found a number of photographs generally meeting the descriptions of the individuals Ms. Willis described as her assailants. 54 We then prepared two photo spreads of six photographs each. Each photograph spread consisted of six photos generally meeting the same characteristics and description of each subject--or suspect at that time individually. Therefore, there were two photo spreads, one relating to Mr. Hines and the other relating to Mr. James. 55 Furthermore, the court did not give the jury a cautionary instruction regarding the nature of these photographs and their limited evidentiary value, and did nothing to mitigate the effect of the introduction of the photospreads on the jury. 56 Although these may not be the worst variety of mugshots--the kind with profile and full-face views, serial numbers, and date of arrest--these photospreads clearly indicate to the jurors that the defendants were in police custody. Further, because appellants admitted having had intercourse with Willis but contended it was consensual, and Willis claimed it was forced, credibility of the witnesses was critical. Thus, the admission of the mugshots would have inflicted severe damage on defendants' credibility in an unfairly prejudicial way. We conclude that these photographs should not have been admitted, that their admission was not harmless error, and their inclusion requires reversal of the convictions. 5