Court Opinion

ID: 9455676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:29:25.400216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:41.332126
License: Public Domain

ROBB, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I would not remand this case, but would affirm on the record before us.
*1194No objection was made at the trial to Seifert’s testimony identifying appellant as the robber. The only objection offered by the appellant’s experienced counsel was definite, precise, and limited to testimony concerning the identification of appellant in the Court of General Sessions. Referring to this identification counsel said “I would object to any testimony by Mr. Seifert that he was brought for this purpose of this identification and did identify the defendant York earlier on that day when his counsel was not present.” (TR. 51) Counsel was satisfied when the Assistant United States Attorney announced that no testimony concerning the identification at the Court of General Sessions would be offered— and none was offered. The limited scope of counsel’s objection is confirmed by the fact that when Seifert was asked to identify the appellant at trial, and did identify him, counsel voiced no objection whatever. (TR. Ill, 112)1 The majority opinion thus holds that the appellant objected to testimony which in fact was received with his consent. I cannot agree to such a transformation of acquiescence into protest.
In any event, I would not hold that Seifert’s observation of the appellant at the Court of General Sessions on February 8, 1968 tainted his identification testimony at the trial on August 20, 1968. The record discloses that the appellant’s preliminary hearing in the Court of General Sessions commenced at about 11:00 A.M. on February 8. The appellant, who had been released on personal recognizance, was seated in the body of the courtroom before the hearing began. According to Seifert, an Assistant United States Attorney took him to the courtroom before the hearing and “He asked me if there was anybody in there that I could identify and then they just turned me loose. I had my immediate superior with me at the time. He brought me down and both of them just put me to the door and turned me loose and said ‘can you see anybody here that you can recognize ? ’ After a few minutes of looking I finally picked out one of them.” The man whom Seifert picked out was the appellant. Seifert testified that no one made any statement to him as to who might be in the courtroom, or suggested whom he might identify. (TR. 26, 27) The record shows that after identifying the appellant in the courtroom Seifert went back to work at his place of business a few blocks from the courthouse, later returned and at 12:10 P.M. the same day appeared as a witness and identified the appellant from the witness stand. The appellant at that time was seated at the end of the trial table with his counsel. Appellant’s counsel, who was also his counsel at the trial, made no objection to this confrontation and identification, which certainly were more *1195suggestive than the previous viewing in the body of the courtroom.2
As I have said, the appellant, free on personal bond, was sitting in the body of the courtroom waiting for his case to be called. Seifert was also properly in court as a witness. If we hold that Seifert’s observation and recognition under the circumstances of this case tainted his later testimony then it would seem that an eyewitness must be quarantined until the instant when he takes the stand at trial; for the impact of Seifert’s observation in the General Sessions courtroom on his testimony at trial would have been the same if Seifert had gone to the courtroom alone, seated himself there and, while waiting for the hearing to begin, had looked around and recognized the appellant.
So far as the identification of the appellant’s photograph by Seifert is concerned, the record discloses that immediately after the robbery Seifert and four of his fellow workers looked at books containing “four or five thousand pictures” without picking out any photograph, (TR. 126) but that later in the day Seifert positively identified the appellant’s picture from a group of some fifteen or twenty photographs. (TR. 130) The circumstances of this identification and of any subsequent viewing of photographs by Seifert were fully and carefully explored in a pretrial hearing before the able District Judge, who ruled that “I can’t find any evidence whatsoever of any suggestive action on the part of the police.” (TR 47) I agree with the District Judge and I think no useful purpose will be served by remanding the case for further consideration of the matter.
Of course we should insist upon fairness in pretrial identification procedures, in conformity with the decisions of the Supreme Court, but in my judgment the majority opinion extends those rulings beyond their intendment and beyond the requirements of fairness.

. The transcript contains the following with respect to the identification at trial:
Q. [By Assistant United States Attorney Mays] Now, I would like to have you look around the courtroom, if you will, and see if you can see either of those persons in the courtroom today.
(The witness complied.)
THE COURT: If you want to step down, go ahead.
(The witness left the stand and viewed the defendants.)
BY MR. MAYS:
Q. Do you see the person you saw in the store on December 30, 1967, in the courtroom today?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Do you see one or two or—
A. I recognize the gentleman on the right over there at the table.
Q. You recognize the gentleman on the right of the table as what?
A. The follow with the shopping bag.
Q. Would you describe what he is wearing today?
A. Right now ?
Q. Yes.
A. He has on a black pull-over shirt. That’s about as much as I have seen of his apparel.
MR. MAYS: Your Honor, may the record reflect the witness has identified the defendant York?
THE COURT: The record will so indicate.

. The transcript of the hearing (TR. 17) contains the following:
Q. [By Mr. Rudy, Assistant United States Attorney] Do you see either of those two individuals in the courtroom today?
A. [By Mr. Seifert] Yes, sir; this gentleman over here.
Q. Are you pointing to the individual seated at the end of the table?
A. The gentleman all the way to my extreme right.
MR. RUDY: I would like the record to reflect the witness has identified the defendant, James York.
THE COURT: Very well.