Opinion ID: 2832674
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Due-Process Test

Text: For a due process violation, the photo array must be “so unnecessarily suggestive that it is ‘conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.’” Grubbs v. Hannigan, 982 F.2d 1483, 1489–90 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 691 (1972)). The use of a photo array is evaluated under a two-step inquiry: 5 Mr. Worku argues that the overarching standard of review is de novo, relying on a case involving reversal of a conviction. But here, the challenge involves the sentence, not the conviction. As a result, we consider the argument involving the photo arrays as a challenge to the procedural reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Ruby, 706 F.3d 1221, 1225 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Because unreliable hearsay evidence can result in a sentence based on erroneous facts, we construe Ruby’s argument as an objection that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable.”). This type of challenge is reviewable under the abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Id. 13
2. If the array was impermissibly suggestive, was identification reliable under the totality of the circumstances? Id.