Opinion ID: 3001229
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Photo Lineup

Text: Hargrove also claims the photo array from which the Alsip police officers identified him was unduly suggestive. However, Hargrove never moved to suppress these identifications and did not otherwise raise this argument in the district court.2 Motions to suppress evidence must be made before trial, FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(b)(3)(C), and failure to do so results in waiver under Rule 12(e). Rule 12(e) permits relief from waiver only for “good cause.” United States v. Johnson, 415 F.3d 728, 730-31 (7th Cir. 1 Because the recordings were properly admitted, Hargrove’s tag-along claim that the government’s closing argument improperly referenced inadmissible evidence—that is, the recordings—also fails. 2 In support of his argument that he raised a due-process objection to the photo array at trial, Hargrove cites his motion for a new trial and the trial transcript at large. His motion for a new trial made no such objection (which would, in any event, have been too late); it merely argued that the out-of-court identifications were unreliable because the Alsip officers also picked photos of men not present at the apartment. The five volumes of trial transcripts (Hargrove provides no more specific citation) contain no reference to a due-process objection to the photo array. 8 No. 05-4376 2005). See Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233, 242 (1973) (addressing another type of challenge Rule 12 requires be made before trial) (“We believe that the necessary effect of the congressional adoption of Rule 12(b)(2) is to provide that a claim once waived pursuant to that Rule may not later be resurrected . . . in the criminal proceeding[ ] . . . in the absence of the showing of ‘cause’ which that Rule requires.”). We have explained that where a defendant merely neglects to make a motion that Rule 12(b)(3) requires be made before trial (as opposed to intentionally forgoing the motion), a Rule 12(e) waiver “is more akin to a forfeiture than a waiver” and will call for plain-error review provided the defendant can make the “good cause” showing required by Rule 12(e). Johnson, 415 F.3d at 730; see also Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. at 242-44 (discussing cause and prejudice showing as prerequisites to relief from a Rule 12 waiver in direct review and habeas contexts); United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1983) (applying the “cause and prejudice” requirements discussed in Davis to procedural defaults in the habeas context). Hargrove has given us no explanation for his failure to seek suppression of this identification evidence before trial as required by Rule 12(b)(3)(C). He certainly had advance notice that the government intended to introduce these identifications because the government used this evidence during the first trial, which ended in a mistrial. Hargrove has not made the good cause showing required by Rule 12(e) for relief from the waiver; we need not move on to the question of whether he was prejudiced to the degree required in plain-error review. But even if we did move to the next step, Hargrove has not convinced us that the district court plainly erred in admitting the identifications made by the Alsip police officers. Unduly suggestive identification procedures No. 05-4376 9 violate due process when they create a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198 (1972); United States v. Traeger, 289 F.3d 461, 473-74 (7th Cir. 2002). Hargrove contends that because he was the only officer depicted in the photo array with a beard and glasses, his photo stood out from the others to such a significant extent that witnesses were predisposed to select it over the others. We disagree. First, his photo does not stand in such stark contrast to the others in the array, which all depict black CPD officers of similar age with short hair and some degree of facial hair. Second, the glasses and beard were not suggestive of anything given that none of the Alsip officers had told investigators that any of the four men at the apartment were bearded or wore glasses. See United States v. Moore, 115 F.3d 1348, 1360 (7th Cir. 1997) (rejecting a claim that a photo array was unduly suggestive because the defendant was the only person depicted with a “notched eyebrow” because only one of several eyewitnesses had described the suspect as having a distinctive eyebrow); United States v. Gibson, 135 F.3d 257, 260 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[B]ecause [the defendant] did not establish that [the eyewitness] told police the perpetrator wore a goatee, portraying [the defendant] with a goatee would not be suggestive.”). Accordingly, the photo array was not unduly suggestive, and it was not error to admit the Alsip police officers’ identifications of Hargrove. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. A true Copy: Teste: ________________________________ Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit USCA-02-C-0072—11-27-07