Court Opinion

ID: 9462307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:37:45.91067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:31.996909
License: Public Domain

OAKES, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the result. I cannot agree with the proposition that Alder’s in-court identification was free of taint from an unnecessarily suggestive photographic display or derived from an independent source, a matter.as to which the State had the burden of proof “by clear and convincing evidence.” United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 240, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967). I concur, however, in the light of Rees’s in-court identification, not tainted as Judge Waterman’s opinion so well demonstrates, on the ground that any error in the receipt of Alder’s testimony was harmless. United States v. Madison, 458 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1972). See also Brathwaite v. Manson, 527 F.2d 363, at 367 (2d Cir. 1975).