Opinion ID: 2796919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Out-of-Court Identifications

Text: Ford argues that the district court committed clear error in finding that the victims’ pre-trial identifications of her were not unduly suggestive or unreliable. The denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed under a mixed standard. We review 5 Case: 14-10381 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 6 of 20 the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and the application of law to those facts de novo. United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 839 (11th Cir. 2009). We construe all facts in favor of the prevailing party, the government in this case, and may affirm the denial on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1222 (11th Cir. 2010). We “employ a two-part test for determining whether an out-of-court identification was properly admitted.” United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1350 (11th Cir. 2006). First, we determine “whether the original identification procedure was unduly suggestive.” Id. If so, we then determine “whether, under the totality of the circumstances, ‘the identification was nonetheless reliable.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Diaz, 248 F.3d 1065, 1102 (11th Cir. 2001)). Ford argues that the district court committed clear error because the pre-trial identifications fail both prongs. Her argument, however, falls short of the first hurdle — the photo array was unremarkable and there is no evidence that the interviewing agents suggested which photo to select. A glance at the photo array readily undermines Ford’s argument that the photo of her was notably different from the others. It was not. All six photographs are of African American women. Ford does not appear older than the other women; her photo is approximately the same size as the others; and her smile is not suggestive when women in two of the other photos also are smiling. 6 Case: 14-10381 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 7 of 20 Testimony from the interviewing agents and witnesses also gives no indication that the procedure was suggestive. The agents did not point to any photo — they simply handed the witnesses the array, “and sat back and asked [them] did [they] recognize anyone.” And the fact that one victim was shown Ford’s individual photo after already having tentatively identified her is irrelevant. The district court therefore did not commit error, let alone clear error, in admitting the identifications.