Opinion ID: 2301355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Mr Perrin's In-Court Identification

Text: Spratt next alleges that in an elaborate conspiracy, the state deliberately withheld material and exculpatory evidence from him during and after trial and later coerced Mr. Perrin to lie on the witness stand. Spratt alleges that on the night of the murder, the police showed Mr. Perrin a photographic array of frontal photographs only, which contained Spratt's picture. Although Mr. Perrin testified that he recognized one person from the photographs and was about 90 percent sure on which one [he] would have picked out[,] he nevertheless refused to select one until he could see a photographic array containing profile photographs. [5] Spratt's conspiracy theory continues in that, after he was arrested later that night, the police took five or six additional profile photographs of him which, he says, they showed to Mr. Perrin the next day. Spratt alleges that Mr. Perrin was still unable to identify Spratt as the perpetrator, even after viewing the five or six additional profile photographs taken of Spratt the night before. Rather than releasing Spratt from custody due to a lack of any eyewitness identification, Spratt contends the police charged him with the crimes. Subsequently, to cover up the fact that the police did not have a positive identification, Spratt claims the police coerced Mr. Perrin to testify at trial that he was never shown any profile photographs whatsoever. To support his claims, Spratt has submitted to this Court an undated copy of what he asserts is a single frontal photograph of him taken after his arrest on December 20, 1995. Next to the frontal photograph is a handwritten notation, presumably written by Spratt, indicating the lack of a corresponding profile photograph. Additionally, he has submitted two short excerpts from the trial transcript. The first demonstrates defense counsel's indication to the trial justice, outside the presence of the jury, that a photograph of Spratt, which was used by police in a photo array shown to Mr. Perrin, was taken the night of the incident after Spratt was arrested. The second excerpt is a portion of Mr. Perrin's testimony indicating that the police invited him to the police station to view photographsnone of which were profile photos. Contrary to Spratt's recollections, the record suggests a slightly different timeline. The record contains a witness statement by Mr. Perrin, dated the night of the murder, December 20, 1995, in which Mr. Perrin describes witnessing a man running from the booth after the victim was shot. The record also contains a photo lineup instructions form, signed by Mr. Perrin and dated December 21, 1995, indicating that Mr. Perrin was shown a photo array on that date. Furthermore, excerpts from the trial transcript specify that it was the day after the murder, December 21, 1995, when Mr. Perrin was shown the photo array containing Spratt's frontal photograph. Thus, the record clearly shows that, after giving a witness statement to police on the night of the murder, Mr. Perrin was shown a photo array of frontal photographs the next day, December 21, 1995, at which time Mr. Perrin refused to pick out a photograph despite being 90 percent sure   . When he requested from the police that they provide him with a profile photograph array, he was told that the police did not have anything set up for him to look at. In regard to the five or six additional profile photographs Spratt alleges were taken after this inconclusive photographic identification procedure, there is no evidence whatsoever supporting Spratt's contention that they ever existed. Spratt's attorney, during cross-examination of Mr. Perrin, inquired at least twice about whether Mr. Perrin had ever been shown any profile photographs of anybody by the police at any time. On both occasions, Mr. Perrin testified that he had never been shown any such photographs. Simply put, the record is devoid of any support for Spratt's contention that the police took five or six additional profile photographs of him, showed them to Mr. Perrin, and then, after Mr. Perrin was allegedly still unable to identify Spratt, coerced Mr. Perrin into denying at trial that he was shown the alleged five or six additional profile photographs. In regard to the issue of Mr. Perrin's in-court identification of Spratt, applicant here has not met his burden of showing sufficient evidence of the state's coercion of Mr. Perrin.