Court Opinion

ID: 9496150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:19:00.355743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:23.529610
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
While I agree with the legal standard the majority uses to determine the reliability of the witnesses’ identification of Lawrence Gregory-Bey, I disagree with its application of that standard. Based on the facts submitted, I believe that the identification procedures were unduly suggestive, making the identification of Bey by the four eyewitnesses, Kathryn Blakely, Angela Grinter, Urhonda Graham, and Patrice Hampton, unreliable. Accordingly, I dissent.
X X * * * *
As the majority noted, we analyze whether the initial identification procedures were unduly suggestive and if so whether the undue suggestion impairs the reliability of the identification. See United States v. Newman, 144 F.3d 531, 535 (7th Cir.1998); United States v. Duprey, 895 F.2d 303, 307 (7th Cir.1989). Our task is made particularly difficult in this case because the witnesses provided statements regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding their identifications to the police and in deposition, motion to suppress, and trial testimony, and some portions of these statements are inconsistent.
A. Unduly Suggestive
Identification procedures are unduly suggestive when the suggestiveness creates a “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” See United States v. Moore, 115 F.3d 1348, 1360 (7th *1052Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Bey challenges the identification procedures used during the photo array and lineups that form the basis of the witnesses’ identification of him.
1. Photo arrays
As the majority notes, repeated showing of a suspect’s picture in police photo arrays is not unduly suggestive if the photos do not resemble each other. See Stewart v. Duckworth, 93 F.3d 262, 265-66 (7th Cir.1996) (after reviewing photos court ruled that the arrays were not unduly suggestive because the photos were dramatically different); United States v. Donaldson, 978 F.2d 381, 386-87 (7th Cir.1992) (court held repeat showings not unduly suggestive because the suspect’s photos were distinctly different). This court normally determines the resemblance by comparing the pictures in each array. Id. at 387. In this case, the court was unable to compare the black and white photo and the color photos due to the unexplained absence of the black and white photo.1 So the majority relies on the witnesses’ testimony to decide if there was a dramatic difference between the photos. However, there are difficulties presented in this case because of the conflicting testimony of the witnesses regarding the differences between the black and white and color photos.2 Given this conflicting testimony and the court’s inability to compare the actual photographs, this court cannot determine the difference, if any, between the black and white and color photos of Bey and thus whether the repeated showing of Bey’s picture was unduly suggestive.
Repeated showing of one suspect’s picture increases the likelihood that the witness will choose the recurring picture not because it is the suspect, but because the witness remembers seeing the picture before. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 383-84, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); Kubat v. Thieret, 867 F.2d 351, 358 (7th Cir.1989). The likelihood that a witness will misidentify a suspect from repeated showings of the suspect’s photo is lessened if the witness at least tentatively identifies the suspect in the first photo array, as was the case in Kubat. See 867 F.2d at 356. In this case, only one of the four eyewitnesses tentatively identified Bey from the black and white photo,3 and she was still not completely certain that Bey was the robber upon viewing the color photos.4 Because three of the wit*1053nesses were unable to even tentatively identify Bey from the black and white photo5 and the only witness to do so expressed uncertainty upon viewing the color photos, the repeated showing of Bey’s photo was unduly suggestive.
The likelihood of irreparable misidentifi-cation was further exacerbated by comments made by the police. Before picking Bey out of the photo array, the police told Grinter that another witness had picked a suspect out of the photos.6 According to Grinter, the police then showed her a photo array in which Bey’s photo was the only photo that had appeared in previous photo arrays.7 Both Grinter and Graham claimed that when they chose Bey the police seemed excited,8 and Grinter further asserted that the police indicated to her that Bey was the same person chosen by the other eyewitnesses.9 These statements and expressions of the police before and after Grinter and Graham identified Bey as a suspect have been found by other circuits to be unduly suggestive. See United States v. Smith, 156 F.3d 1046, 1050 (10th Cir.1998) (unduly suggestive for police to tell witnesses to assume the suspect was in the photo array); Grubbs v. Hannigan, 982 F.2d 1483, 1490 (10th Cir. *10541993) (impermissibly suggestive to cause a witness to assume that suspect was in photo array); Swicegood v. Alabama, 577 F.2d 1322, 1326-29 (5th Cir.1978) (ordering habeas relief in part because police told witnesses after lineup that they had identified “the suspect that we had”); United States v. Jarvis, 560 F.2d 494, 500 (2d Cir.1977) (practice of telling witnesses whether identifications are “correct” or not, could so taint an identification as to require exclusion of evidence).
In sum, because the court cannot determine how similar Bey appeared in the photos used at each photo array, the witnesses were unable to identify Bey prior to viewing the color photo, and the police made suggestive comments, I would hold that the photo array identification procedures for all four of the eyewitnesses were unduly suggestive.
2. Lineup
The lineup procedure employed by the police was also unduly suggestive, for several reasons. First, while waiting in the police conference room immediately after viewing the live lineup, and also later that day, Graham and Grinter discussed their potential identifications with one another.10 It was only after these conversations took place that Graham and Grinter identified Bey during a video lineup. Because they made positive identifications only after learning of each other’s suspicions about whether the robber was in the lineup, their identifications were tainted. See Monteiro v. Picard, 443 F.2d 311, 313 (1st Cir.1971) (finding certain identifications to be “tainted” because the witnesses identified a suspect only after hearing another witness identify that suspect).
Second, Grinter said that before Blakely went to the lineup, she told Blakely that everyone had picked the same suspect out of the photo array.11 Grinter’s comments to Blakely prior to the live lineup probably suggested to Blakely that she should look for the person in the photo instead of making an independent identification, creating the substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.
Third, the identification of Bey by Hampton in the video lineup was unduly suggestive because the police used the same lineup in the video as the live lineup.12 This is problematic because of the possibility that the witnesses would discuss the live lineup before they were brought in to view the video lineup in the same way they discussed the photo array before attending the live lineup. Thus, the live and video lineups were unduly suggestive for *1055the four eyewitnesses because the procedures were not reasonable and created the substantial likelihood of irreparable mis-identification.
B. Reliability of Identification
Applying the five factors announced in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), I find that each of the four eyewitnesses’ identifications of Bey was unreliable because of their lack of certainty that Bey was the robber.
In her first statement to the police, Blakely failed to describe any specific characteristics of the suspect beyond the fact that he was tall, skinny, and had dark skin. Tr.2 at 381 (Defendant’s Exhibit C). In fact, Detective Jackson testified that within ten days of the robbery, Blakely intimated that a different dark-skinned man was the robber.13 In addition, the level of certainty Blakely expressed when identifying Bey is troubling. Blakely was shown Bey’s picture several times before she could identify Bey.14 Blakely reasons that she did not identify Bey earlier because she was tired of the detective showing her the photos and wanted him to leave.15 This explanation severely undercuts the reliability of Blakely’s dramatic reaction to Bey’s color picture16 and the certainty of her identification.
Furthermore, Blakely testified at trial that when she identified Bey from the photo array more than three months after the robbery, she was certain Bey was the assailant.17 Notwithstanding this certainty, Blakely further testified that when she identified Bey at the lineup four months after the robbery,18 she thought that he was not the same man she had just picked out of the photo array.19 Moreover, when Blakely picked Bey out of the lineup she was not “100% sure” that Bey was the robber, but certain that Bey “looked exactly like [the robber].” Tr.5 at 1228. Because Blakely initially identified someone else as a suspect nearly two weeks after the robbery, believed that the person she *1056picked at the lineup was different from the person she picked out of the photo array, and was uncertain whether Bey was the robber, her prior identifications and her identification at trial were unreliable.
Grinter’s identification was no more reliable than Blakely’s identification. First of all, it is questionable whether Grinter had ample time to view the suspect at the time of the crime because she testified that she was afraid to look at him directly.20 However, assuming that she did have an opportunity to view the suspect and paid attention to him, Grinter still failed to accurately describe Bey in her first statement. Specifically, Grinter failed to mention that the suspect had bumps on his face, a mustache, and a beard. Tr.2 at 388 (Defendant’s Exhibit E). In fact, at her deposition and at the motion to suppress hearing, she testified that the suspect did not have any scars or bumps on his face.21 Thus, her early descriptions of the suspect were not accurate. When she finally identified Bey more than three months after the robbery and after looking at photos at least three different times, see Tr.3 at 543^44, Tr.5 at 1056-57, she was certain that it was Bey.22 Nevertheless, Grinter was not so certain that Bey was the robber when she later went to the live lineup because she did not pick Bey23 and admitted to Graham that she thought it was someone other than Bey.24 It was only after Graham said in Grinter’s presence that she believed that the suspect was number five, Bey, that Grinter identified Bey in the video lineup.25 Therefore, Grinter’s identification of Bey in the photo array, lineup, and at trial was unreliable.
Graham’s identification of Bey was also unreliable. Graham had ample time to view the suspect, she paid attention to the suspect, and her first description matched Bey.26 However, Graham’s description of Bey changed over time. Graham later said that the suspect did not have a beard or mustache,27 but these characteristics *1057were included in her first statement. Furthermore, although Graham finally identified Bey more than three months after the incident and after viewing photos at least three different times,28 she did not pick Bey when she later went to the live lineup.29 She claims that she was scared,30 but she also testified that she did not pick Bey because his hair looked different.31 Because of Graham’s indecisiveness in her description and identification of Bey, Graham’s prior identifications and her identification at trial were not reliable.
Finally, Hampton’s identification of Bey was unreliable. Hampton had ample time to view the suspect at the time of the crime, and there is no question that she paid attention to the suspect at the time of the crime. Tr.3 at 563-71. Yet, her first statement failed to mention that the suspect had bumps on his face and a mustache.32 When she officially identified Bey’s photo, she had seen his picture three times,33 and she was not completely certain that it was Bey. Hampton requested to see Bey in person before she could be certain.34
At the lineup Hampton failed to pick Bey35 and lied about it to the police.36 She did not change her story until she heard that someone had identified Bey as the suspect.37 Hampton then called the police and said that she failed to identify the suspect because she was scared.38 Addi*1058tionally, Hampton discussed the suspect with Grinter before the video lineup, although they claim that they did not discuss whom they picked.39 Hampton’s uncertainty and subsequent conversations with the police and Grinter before the video lineup make Hampton’s identification of Bey unreliable.
For the reasons stated above, I would reverse Bey’s conviction.

. “Q. [to Officer Jackson], Do you have a copy of the black and white photo that was shown? A. I don’t have a copy.... Q. No, I'm talking about the copy that was shown? A. No, I don't know what happened to it.” Tr.2 at 409-10.

. During her deposition, Blakely said that the black and white photo and the color photo were not distinctively different. "Answer [Blakely deposition readback]; the picture in the folder, they was exactly alike except the picture in the folder had more color to it than the picture was black and white. Question; the other was what? Answer; black and white. Question; was black and white or just darker? Answer; it was, it didn’t have any color to it. Question; but you still could tell the same facial features? Answer; yes. And you could still tell that it was the same picture and eveiything else? Answer; yes.” Tr.5 at 1220-21.

. “Q [to Hampton]. So what did you say when you picked that picture out? A. Well, I told him that this looked like him but I couldn’t be sure because of the detail of the picture.” Tr.3 at 581. “A [Hampton], And there was a black and white photo in there that looked like the guy but I couldn’t uh, identify it because the picture wasn't clear enough. Q. Okay. Did you say something to Jackson or anybody about that? A. Yes I did. Q. What’d you say to them? A. I told them that uh, this looked like the guy but the picture's not clear.” Tr.6 at 1283-84.

. "A [Officer Combs], As I recall one (1) lady, Patrice Hampton, stated that she would uh, she felt 90% sure that was the- man but she'd like to see him in person to see if that *1053was him. She felt like once she seen him in person she'd know him.” Tr.3 at 684-85.

. Blakely and Grinter testified at various points that they had tentatively identified Bey from the black and white photo. "A [Blakely]. It was uh, a black and white and it wasn’t real clear. Q. Were you able to distinguish the features in that photo? A. Yes, 'cause I told my mother, I said that looks like the guy. And then she said, well if it is then call uh, Jackson back and let him know. But I didn't.” Tr.5 at 1202. "Q [Grinter]. Okay. Was it a color photograph, the first one that you picked out that you said looked like it, looked like him? A. No. Q. It was uh, was it a black and white photograph? A. Yes.” Tr.3 at 546. However, their testimony is directly contradicted by other statements made by Blakely, Grinter, and Officer Jackson. "Q [Grinter]. Okay. Uh, what did that photograph look like? A. It was a black and white picture. Q. Okay. And what was the quality of that photo? A. It was too dark to see the features in his face.... Q. Did you, when you saw that photograph before did you identify it? A. No.” Tr.5 at 1034. "Q [to Officer Jackson]. Okay. Was uh, so Lawrence Gregory’s picture was included in this photo array of black and white pictures, is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And uh, to your knowledge was uh, did either Patrice Hampton or Kathryn Blakely pick him out of that photo array? A. No, they did not.” Tr.2 at 409; see also Blakely, Tr.3 at 636-39.

. "Q [Grinter deposition readback]. When you picked somebody out you told Mr. Alden that [Fred Jackson] had told you that once other people had picked somebody out of the group, is that right? Yes. Did he tell you that before or after you made your selection? Answer; before. Question; before? Answer; yes.” Tr.3 at 548.

. "Q [to Grinter], You ultimately picked the picture out that Detective Jackson showed you in this photo array, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Had you seen any of the other individuals in this photo array in a group of pictures before? A. No. Q. Only Lawrence Gregory? A. Yes.” Tr.5 at 1058.

. "Q [to Grinter]. After you made your selection was Detective Jackson, did he appear to be excited that you'd made the selection that you, that you'd made? A. Yes.” Tr.3 at 549. "Question [Graham deposition readback]; when you picked him out what did they say to you when you picked him out? Answer; nothing. They was kind of happy like.... They just was kind of happy, you know, that I, like if I picked out the right person. They didn’t say you picked out the right person, that’s him. Question; did they give you the impression that you did pick out the right person then, obviously that you'd picked out.... Answer; in a way.” Tr.5 at 1163-64.

. "Question [Grinter deposition readback]; did [Detective Jackson] indicate to you if that was the same person that the other girl picked out, he was happy to see you picked that person out? Answer; yes.” Tr.3 at 550.

. "A [Grinter]. We were uh, we were going home and we asked each other if we had picked anyone out of the line-up. Q. Uh hum. A. I said no. She said no. Uh, and her mother, Louella Spurling asked us did we see the person up there. And we said yes. And she said that we should of uh, marked the sheet.” Tr.5 at 1043. "Q [to Graham]. Alright. The two (2) of you whispered in the conference room about... A. Um hum. Q... who was in the line-up, is that right? A. Um hum. Q. Alright. And did you tell Angie that you thought it was number five (5)? A. Um hum.” Tr.3 at 622.

. "Q [Grinter deposition readback]. So when you were notified about going to the line-up did you have a conversation with anyone? Did you have a conversation with Urhonda, Patrice, Sonia or Kathryn about the fact you were going to a line-up? Answer; just that we were going down and if this guy really looked like the guy that robbed McDonald’s. Question; okay, and you had then talked to them about the fact that certain ones had picked him out of the photo display and it was the same one that you all picked out, you compared notes about that already before the line-up, is that correct? Answer; yes.” Tr.5 at 1064-65.

."Q [to Hampton]. And what was that a video tape of? A. It was a video tape of the line-up? Q. Was it the exact same line-up that you'd seen uh, several weeks earlier? A. Right.” Tr.6 at 1296.

. "Q [to Officer Jackson]: Let me ask you this question; prior to December of 1985, as a matter of fact within ten (10) days after November the 17th, did Kathryn Blakely indicate to you that she thought she saw one uh, or someone who looked uh, the perpetrator of the robbery in a food stamp store in Indianapolis? A. Yes.” Tr.2 at 421.

. ”Q [to Blakely], Now before that time you had seen the black and white photograph, is that correct? A. Just uh, yeah. Q. The last time that the photographs were brought to you, you had seen the photograph of this same individual. A. Yes.” Tr.3 at 641.

. “Q [Blakely deposition readback]. He said, I just got to talking to Jackson and Jackson said he showed you this same picture. Did you know? I said, yeah I seen it. He said, well why didn’t you tell Jackson. I said, because I wasn't really, I was just mad at him and was just really, I wasn't paying no attention to him. I started at it and then I had a reaction and I just put it under the bottom and just gave them to him so he could go and hurry up and leave.” Tr.5 at 1219-20.

. Blakely began to shake as soon as she saw Bey's picture. "A [Blakely]. And then I started shaking and I told Combs, I said, this is the guy.” Tr.3 at 641.

. "A [Blakely]. And [Officer Combs] said are you sure. And I said yes I’m sure.” Tr.3 at 641.

. Blakely only participated in the live lineup in which Bey was present. Grinter, Graham and Hampton participated in the live lineup and the video lineup.

. "Q [to Blakely]. Now Kathryn when you made the identification of the line-up how'd you feel about that? What, let me rephrase my question. Uh, did you recognize the person in the line-up that you picked as the person whose photograph you had picked? A. No. Q. Okay. Did you think you were picking someone different? A. Yes.” Tr.5 at 1207.

. "Q [to Grinter], And were you sort of afraid to look at, look at them directly? A. Yes.” Tr.3 at 535.

. "Q [to Grinter]. Did he have any scars? A. Not that I remember.” Tr.3 at 538. "Q [Grinter deposition readback]. Okay, were there any scars or birthmarks or any other features on the face you recognized? Answer; no.” Tr.3 at 540.

. "A [Grinter]. The next time I was sure it was him. Q. The next time you were sure that was who? A. The dark skinned man that robbed McDonald’s.” Tr.3 at 545.

. "Q [to Grinter], And did you pick anybody out of the line-up? A. No.” Tr.3 at 551.

. "Q [to Graham]. And did [Grinter] tell you who she thought it was? A. She, no she didn’t. Not that I remember. Q. What’s, did you ever tell me that you thought that she told you it was number three (3)? A. Yeah, I think so. Q. Okay. So you remember her telling you that she thought it was number three (3) that was in the line-up? A. Uh huh.” Tr.3 at 622.

. "Q [Grinter deposition readback]. Did [Graham] ever say to you she knew it was number so-and-so, did she ever say to her mother out loud she knew it was so-and-so, number five †5)? Answer; she told her mother. Question; that she knew it was number five (5)? Answer; yes.” Tr.5 at 1069. "Q [to Louella Spurling, Graham’s mother]. Do you remember which number [Graham] said? A. Yes, she said number five (5). And then Angela Grinter said number five (5) also.” Tr.5 at 1174.

. "A [Graham], His face was narrow and he had like a little beard like he was trying to shave and he had little bumps underneath here not that many but a little and a little beard and a little mustache.... A. He had you know like some scars he had from when he was little and they was just still in his face.” Tr.2 at 385 (Defendant’s Exhibit D); see also Tr.3 at 608.

. "Q [Graham deposition readback]. [T]here's no question in your mind that uh, he had no facial hair at that time? A. Not to me he didn’t.” Tr.5 at 1155.

. “A [Graham]. I didn’t, I didn’t think it was him so I didn't uh, I didn't see him. Q. Okay. And uh, then after that did you have a occasion to view photographs any other time. A. At home and at work.” Tr.3 at 611; see also Tr.5 at 1118-20.

. "Q [to Graham]. Did any, but you didn’t pick anybody out? A. Um hum.” Tr.3 at 629.

. "A [Graham]. Why I didn’t pick him out after I had told them it was him in Steve Goldsmith's office and then they said why come I didn't pick him out and I told them because I was scared.” Tr.3 at 630.

. "Q [to Graham], So did any of the detectives say anything to you about how could you pick him out of the photo array but not pick him out of the line-up? A. He, he looked different. His hair did.” Tr.3 at 629.

. "Q [to Hampton], Okay uh did he have a mustache? A. No he had facial hairs. Q. Facial hairs? A. Beard hairs.... Q. Any scars unusual on his face? A. No I didn’t see any. Q. Okay anything that you can think about that stood out about this guy? A. No but if you showed me a picture of em I bet you I could point him out.” Tr.2 at 373 (Defendant's Exhibit A).

. “Q [to Hampton], Okay. So you saw the picture that you ultimately picked out three (3) different times.... A. Right.” Tr.3 at 585.

.See supra note 4.

. "Q [to Hampton]. Did [Mr. Goldsmith] ask you if the person involved in the robbery was in the line-up? A. Yes. Q. What did you tell him? A. I told him no.” Tr.3 at 589.

. "A [Hampton]. He told, he asked me did I uh, he asked me could I identify one of the guys. And I told him no. Q. So what, why did uh, was that true? A. Was it true that I could or couldn’t? Q. Well, you told him that you couldn’t, right? A. Right. Q. Was that true? A. No.” Tr.6 at 1293.

. “A [Hampton], So then it wasn't until the next day that you contacted Detective Jackson and said that you did, in fact, know somebody in the line-up? A. Yes. Q. But at that point in time you knew Urhonda and Angie had not picked him out and they ... A. No, at that time I didn't because all I knew at that time is that one (1) of the girls picked out one (1) of the guys. And, one (1) of the guys I do not know which one they picked out. So, I couldn't even answer that for you.” See Hampton dep., 6j, at 48.

. "A [Hampton], And when I called Dave Cook I had to explain to him everything that, you know, that I was scared to pick him out and the reason why and everything.” Tr.3 at 590.

. "Q [Hampton deposition readback]. So then the next day you and Angie had a conversation about who it was that picked him out, right? Answer; it wasn't a veiy long conversation.” Tr.3 at 603.