Opinion ID: 405147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: in-court identification of thurston

Text: 19 Thurston argues that the government's attorney improperly assisted Lynn McDonough, a teller at the Hallandale Bank, in her in-court identification of Thurston. The following exchange occurred between the government and the witness: 20 Government: Miss McDonough, before going further, I am going to ask you whether you recognize any of the individuals here in this courtroom that you saw on that day. 21 Witness: Yes. 22 Government: Can you tell us who that individual or individuals are that you recognize? 23 Witness: The man in the blue sweater with the stripes. 24 Government: I don't see a blue sweater. 25 Witness: Grey. 26 Defendant: Judge, I object. That is highly improper. Prejudicial. 27 Court: Mr. Stern, let her tell us. 28 Government: Could you point to us where he was in the courtroom? 29 Witness: In the first pew with a cross around his neck (Thurston). 30 Thurston was wearing a grey sweater, while a member of the public, seated in the rear of the courtroom, was wearing a blue knit shirt. Both were black men. In an abundance of caution, the district court instructed the jury to disregard the witness' identification testimony, in part because of the exchange described above, and for another reason not relevant here. We conclude that the government's attorney did not improperly assist the witness in her in-court identification of Thurston. 31 The district court itself stated that at the time the witness made her identification (1) it was clear that she was looking at Thurston, and (2) she was not looking in the area in which the person wearing the blue shirt was sitting. Further, the government attorney's conduct in this case is unlike that in United States v. Warf, 529 F.2d 1170 (5th Cir. 1976), cited to us by Thurston. In Warf, before the witness said anything, the government's attorney both (1) pointed at the defense table, at which the defendant was seated, and (2) asked, Is he (the individual who made the incriminating statements about which the witness testified) over at this table .... In other words, the government aided the witness' identification both verbally and by pointing before the witness made the identification. Id. at 1171, 1174. In contrast, the government's attorney here did not direct the witness' attention to Thurston, either verbally or by pointing, before the witness made her identification. Having observed the witness, the district court here concluded that she was looking at Thurston at the time she made her identification. Moreover, the witness later testified that she didn't notice the person wearing the blue shirt. Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that the government's attorney did not improperly assist the witness' identification of Thurston.VI. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE 32 Thurston contends that the government introduced insufficient evidence to establish his participation in the Hallandale Bank robbery. More specifically, he argues that the government failed to show that during the commission of the robbery, Thurston placed his fingerprints on a savings withdrawal slip, which was found at the scene of the crime. The test that guides our review of the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is whether a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). 1 We conclude that a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Thurston participated in the robbery of the bank in question. 33 The evidence of Thurston's fingerprints on the savings withdrawal slip, found in front of the bank tellers' stalls after the robbery, was the most significant evidence of Thurston's involvement in the robbery in question. Thurston argues that the government did not adequately negate the hypothesis that Thurston placed his fingerprints on that slip at a time other than the time of the robbery, citing United States v. Lonsdale, 577 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1978), and United States v. Stephenson, 474 F.2d 1353 (5th Cir. 1973). We cannot agree. One of the robbers was seen writing on or handling the withdrawal slip just before the robbery occurred. 2 Also, the bank manager testified that because the floor of the bank is swept each evening, it would not be possible for a withdrawal slip to remain on the floor from one day to the next. We note that the robbery in question occurred around 11:30 a. m., evidently only a few hours after the bank opened for business that day. The bank manager further testified that Thurston did not have any account at the bank. In light of this evidence we hold that the government introduced sufficient evidence to establish that Thurston participated in the robbery of the bank in question. 34 For the reasons discussed above, the convictions are 35 AFFIRMED.