Opinion ID: 309435
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: mug shot of tremarco

Text: 11 Appellant Tremarco contends that it was improper for the district court to allow a mug shot (screened to hide identifying marks) into evidence against him. He claims that this impermissibly placed his prior criminal record before the jury. He relied on Barnes v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 365 F.2d 509 (1966), but that case is distinguishable from his. 3 Our task is to decide whether the district court properly determined that the probative value of the mug shot outweighed whatever prejudicial effects that it had. E. g., Hines v. United States, 470 F.2d 225 (3d Cir. 1972). 12 In Barnes, there was an in-court identification. No mention of a photographic identification was made on direct examination. Defense counsel chose not to argue to the court that the identification procedures violated Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1969), but, instead, he cross-examined the witness concerning a pretrial photographic identification. While photographs were mentioned freely, there was no description of them as mug shots. 13 On redirect examination, the government attorney introduced into evidence two photographs of Barnes which the witness had viewed. While one was a normal snapshot, another was a mug shot. There was tape over the prison numbers on the photograph, and the trial judge emphasized that it covered something detrimental by commenting to the jury that he feared that one of them might inadvertently remove it and see the markings. The court held that the introduction of this mug shot improperly placed the defendant's prior criminal record before the jury even though it was the defense who had first brought out the photographic identification. The court emphasized that the prosecutor could have buttressed the testimony of his witness on redirect examination by introducing solely the snapshot and thus avoiding the prejudice inherent in introducing the mug shot. Furthermore, it does not appear that the defense inquiry in Barnes focused on the appearance of the appellant in pictures which the witness was shown. It instead concentrated on the fact that the identifying witness had been shown only pictures of appellant. 14 There are similarities to Barnes in this case. An FBI agent made an incourt identification of appellant on direct examination, and no mention of photographs was made. He testified that he had seen appellant near the garage to which the stolen tin had been transported. There was no attempt to suppress the agent's identification, and on cross-examination the defense attorney brought out the fact that the witness had made a previous photographic identification of appellant. The attorney was particularly concerned with how appellant was dressed, both at the time he was seen by the agent and in the photograph that was shown to the agent. He was attempting to prove that the agent had identified appellant only because appellant had a white tee shirt on in his picture and because the man the agent had seen at the garage also had a white tee shirt on. The following line of questioning occurred: 15 Q. In this photograph was he wearing a white undershirt? 16 A No sir, not that I recall. 17 Q Do you remember what he was wearing in the photograph? 18 A As I recall it was a facial photograph. It was not a photograph of an entire person. 19 Q Did it have his shoulders showing? 20 A Not that I recall, no, sir. 21 Q Just from the chin up, the neck? 22 A No, from the chest area. It was a mug-type photograph. [Emphasis added]. 23 Q Yes, so that from the chest up you would see his shoulders? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q And if he wore a white undershirt that would be shown clearly in the photograph, would it not? 26 A Yes, sir. 27 Q Because the shoulders would be bare, is that right? 28 A Yes, sir. 29 Q Do you recall whether he had a white undershirt on in that photograph? 30