Court Opinion

ID: 9487964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:31:59.706523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:35.848102
License: Public Domain

ROTH, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion which reverses the defendant’s conviction on the Waterworks bank robbery count. I do not agree with the majority’s review of the evidence of Lorraine Woessner’s encounter with the defendant in the courthouse hallway. I am concerned that the majority in its citation of the facts focuss-es on facts which support its conclusion that *1134the identification of the defendant by Lorraine Woessner was impermissibly suggestive, rather than looking at the whole picture. Such a limited focus does support the majority’s ultimate determination that the circumstances of the hallway viewing created a “substantial risk of misidentification.” However, I conclude that a broader review of Woessner’s voir dire testimony is required and that review supports the conclusion arrived at by the district court.
My reading of the record convinces me that, when the evidence is viewed completely and in context, it will uphold the district judge’s decision to permit Lorraine Woess-ner to identify Emanuele in the courtroom, without holding a prior line-up. Before permitting Woessner to testify or to identify the defendant, the district court had Woessner examined on voir dire concerning the hallway encounter. I will set out Woessner’s examination more completely so that its full scope can be appreciated. I begin my discussion with relevant portions of her direct examination:
Q At some time did you see someone come out of the courtroom?
A Yes, we did, um hum.
Q Could you describe to the Court exactly what happened?
A Well, we were sitting there and we were, I guess we were waiting to be called in as the witness and three men came out, and we both were kind of startled, and I recognized him right away and, um, didn’t say anything. And he was down the hall, and pretty far down the hall when we said to each other, it’s him.
Q So now, if I get this straight, when he first came out of the courtroom did anybody say anything to you prior to your having recognized him?
A No.
Q Now, why did you recognize him? What was your basis for recognizing him?
A I think it was like his eyes, only it was — because—it was his eyes.
Q Now, at the time — so, and what were you basing that, that rec — that recognition on, on your recollection of what occurred on the December 1, 1993?
A Well, because when it happened, he came in and stood, not behind my customer that I was waiting on, just about two feet onto the side of him and he just — he had his glasses on and he just starred [sic] at me. I mean, it just like — I, I mean, I’ll never forget it.
Q How long was he in front of you?
A I would say — I was finishing up with my customer. I would say like about three or four minutes.
Q Now, the government has previously shown to you a series of pictures; correct? A Um hum.
Q And if I could show you what’s been marked as Government Exhibits 4 through 9 for purposes of trial, will you look at these for a moment?
Now, you’ve looked at those previously, right?
A Um hum.
Q And you weren’t able to identify anybody?
A Huh ah.1
Q And you still can’t?
A I can identify him, but I mean—
Q You can’t identify him from the picture?
A Huh ah.
Q But you can identify the person that you saw in the hallway?
A Um hum.
App. at 128-130 (emphasis added).
Further information was then developed on the defense’s cross-examination of Lorraine Woessner on voir diré:
Q And from the doors in the courtroom there’s like a hallway leading to the hallway where you were sitting? In this hallway, there’s a hallway that goes down?
A Yes.
Q So, it — like you were sitting like at the end of a “T” almost, so that you could see the courtroom doors?
A We could see the courtroom doors.
*1135Q Okay. And there’s, I don’t know, 20 feet or some — approximately something like that from where you were sitting to the courtroom doors?
A Yes.
Q And you and Miss Hottel were talking about what?
A We were just talking about things that we were previously through. We had gone through Integra training and we had gone through that.
Q I see. Now, the courtroom doors open and three men walk out?
A Yes.
Q The gentleman in the middle has his arms behind his back?
A Yes.
Q And he has one man on each side?
A Yes.
Q Did the men on each side have like their hand on his arm or?
A I didn’t notice that.
Q Didn’t notice that?
A Huh ah.
Q You did notice, though, that the man in the middle had his hands behind his back?
A Yes.
Q And you did notice at some time that he was handcuffed?
A After he was down the hall.
Q You could see when he was going down the hall that he was handcuffed?
A Um hum.
Q But you knew he was being escorted; he was in the middle from two guys that were escorting him out of the courtroom?
A Yes.
Q Did Miss Hottel tell you that was him?
A Ah, not right away, only when he was down the hall she mentioned that. I mean, she spoke very softly and said that she, she was very upset because she didn’t remember — she didn’t think she remembered what he looked like, but when she saw him she knew exactly that’s who it was.
Q After the person was taken down the hallway?
A Yes.
Q You and Miss Hottel said that it was him. You turned to each other?
A No, not really.
Q No?
A Huh ah.
Q Did you discuss the person that came out?
A No, no.
Q Didn’t say that was him?
A Huh ah.
Q She didn’t say that was him to you?
A I think we both looked at each other and we were kind of it’s, it has to be him (witness nodding.)
Q But, it has to be him?
A Um hum.
Q Because he was handcuffed or?
A Well, no, not because he was handcuffed, because from, from his personal appearance.
Q After this happened.
Did you discuss with Miss Hottel the eyes?
A No.
Q She didn’t tell you that?
A Well, she, she thought it was his eyes, and I, I mean, I agreed with her.
Q You agreed with her?
A Eight.
Q But Miss Hottel did mention something about the eyes?
A Um hum.
Q Did she bring up the eyes first or did you?
A I don’t really remember that.
Q The two of you, though, did have a conversation about the eyes on the person that was escorted out of the courtroom?
A Well, we didn’t have a conversation.
Q You just said it was the eyes?
*1136A Right.
App. at 133-136.
Based on this voir dire examination of Lorraine Woessner, the district judge decided that she would allow Woessner to testify and would deny the defense motion for a lineup because the judge found that Woess-ner had “an independent basis for her identification of the defendant.” App. at 138. From my review of this testimony, I do not find this factual determination by the district judge to be clearly erroneous. See United States v. Inigo, 925 F.2d 641, 656 (3d Cir.1991) (district court’s refusal to suppress documents reviewed for clear error as to the underlying facts).
In reviewing such a factual determination by the district court, we do not have to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the district judge (although I am prepared to do so). We must instead determine whether the district judge’s conclusion is supported by the evidence. See e.g., Cooper v. Tard, 855 F.2d 125, 126 (3d Cir.1988) (for clear error “our standard of review is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support [the district court’s] findings). Clearly here there is sufficient evidence.- Lorraine Woessner testified that she recognized the defendant “right away” as he came out of the courtroom — before he passed her so that she could see the handcuffs and before Martha Hottel said anything about his identity. The district judge was present to hear the testimony and to weigh credibility. I find it inappropriate for us to completely disregard the judge’s credibility determination — as, it would seem, we must if we do not accept Lorraine Woessner’s testimony that she recognized the defendant “right away” as he emerged from the courtroom.2
In view of the credence which the district judge had to give to Lorraine Woessner’s statement that she recognized Emanuele “right away,”3 what weight must I give to the fact that, after Emanuele had walked past her, Woessner could see that his hands were cuffed behind him? In view of the immediate recognition, I do not find Woess-ner’s subsequent observation of the handcuffs to be unduly suggestive — just as the majority does not find unduly suggestive the fact that Martha Hottel saw the handcuffs also.
This then brings me to the issue of the propriety of the standard followed by the district court: Was there “an independent basis” for the identification; i.e., is Woess-ner’s immediate recognition of Emanuele, a sufficient ground to support the denial of the defense’s motion for a lineup. I conclude that “an independent basis” for an identification is consistent with an identification which possesses sufficient aspects of reliability; that Woessner’s testimony of immediate recognition of the defendant eliminates the “substantial risk of misidentification” which could be engendered by such an encounter. If Woessner recognized Emanuele immediately in the corridor, I easily infer that she would have recognized him immediately in the courtroom had the corridor encounter not occurred. Lorraine Woessner testified on voir dire that, at the bank, she observed the defendant for three or four minutes as he stood about two feet from the side of the customer she was waiting on; that she recognized the defendant immediately when he came out of the courtroom, before she could see his hands cuffed behind him; that she recognized him-in the hallway from his eyes; and that the photograph of defendant, which she could not identify as the defendant when it was shown to her by the F.B.I., she again in the courtroom, after the hallway encounter, could not identify as the defendant.
For all the above reasons, I believe that the district court did not err when it permitted Lorraine Woessner to make a courtroom identification of the defendant. I am, therefore, of the opinion that defendant’s conviction on the Waterworks bank robbery count *1137should be affirmed.4

. I interpret "um hum” as "yes” and "huh ah” as "no.”

. As the majority acknowledges, because there was no apparent government complicity in the way in which the confrontation came about. I do not have to factor the element of evil government intent into my consideration.

. The district judge could not have arrived at the *1137decision she did if she had not believed Woessner on this point.

. Because I would affirm the district court's admission of Woessner's in-court identification of the defendant, I do not need to go on to harmless error. However, were that necessary, I would find any error to be harmless. The surveillance photos, taken at the Waterworks bank, are independent corroboration of defendant's involvement. They were identified, as being of defendant, by a disinterested witness, who had recently repaired Emanuele’s car for him, and by a woman who had given him a temporary place to stay. The "interest” of the witnesses, such as defendant's mother and his girl friend, who could not identify the bank photos, was made evident to the jurors, who also saw the photos. Moreover, defendant’s “expert witness,” the plastic surgeon who testified from a comparison of photographs that the bank photos were not of Emanuele, admitted that he knew little about photography. The photographs he compared with the bank photos were taken with a different camera and different film; the image was captured at a different location on the surface of the camera lens, while Emanuele was standing still. App. at 444-46. As the prosecution's photography expert testified, the slow film and poor lens in the bank camera could “smear” a moving figure on the film so that the image was distorted. App. at 465-67. In addition, the defense expert made his measurements from points, such as the eyebrows, which may move according to the subject's expression, e.g., a frown or a smile. I raise my own eyebrows at this type of expertise.