Opinion ID: 757025
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subsequent In-Court Identifications

Text: 149 The trial court did not err by admitting Moosh's subsequent in-court identifications of Salameh and Abouhalima. 150 A witness who identified a defendant prior to trial may make an in-court identification of the defendant if: (1) the procedures giving rise to the pretrial identification were not unduly suggestive; or (2) the in-court identification is independently reliable, even though the pretrial identification was unduly suggestive. See, e.g., United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347, 1359 (2d Cir.1994) (citing Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); Jarrett v. Headley, 802 F.2d 34, 42 (2d Cir.1986)). The reliability of an in-court identification is determined by weighing the degree of suggestiveness of [the pretrial procedures] against 'factors suggesting that [the] in-court identification may be independently reliable rather than the product of the earlier suggestive procedures.'  United States v. Ciak, 102 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 973 (2d Cir.1990) (citations omitted; second alteration in original)). Factors suggesting reliability include: the witness's opportunity to view the defendant during the crime; the witness's degree of attention; the accuracy of the witness's pre-identification description of the defendant; the level of certainty demonstrated at the identification; and the time between the crime and the identification. Manson, 432 U.S. at 114, 97 S.Ct. 2243. 151 Although the government cannot properly endeavor to manufacture an identification where none existed, it may use a photo array to attempt to refresh a witness's recollection. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 975-76. Such a procedure is appropriate provided there is a foundation for believing that the witness once had knowledge of the fact as to which his recollection is to be refreshed. Id. at 976. 152 As discussed above, Salameh and Abouhalima failed to demonstrate that Moosh's prior identification was based on unduly suggestive procedures. Accordingly, any question regarding the reliability of Moosh's identifications goes only to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. 153 Even assuming, arguendo, that the photo arrays were unduly suggestive, the in-court identification was admissible because it was independently reliable. Moosh testified that he had seen and spoken with Salameh and Abouhalima when he pumped gas for them on the fateful morning. He independently recognized Salameh's photograph in the newspaper and accurately described both Salameh and Abouhalima to the FBI. There is no suggestion that Moosh was equivocal during his FBI interview, including when he identified Salameh and Abouhalima from the photo arrays. Furthermore, the pretrial identification occurred shortly after the bombing. See id. 154 Moreover, the jury witnessed the botched, and subsequently corrected, in-court identification. The jurors could determine for themselves the credibility of Moosh's subsequent identification based on this evidence.