Court Opinion

ID: 9532267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:19:44.315686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:43.025129
License: Public Domain

Kaplan, J.
(dissenting in part). I would reverse as to the defendant Kudish on the ground that the young *633lady’s identification of him rested on an infirm basis which was subsequently bolstered through procedures questionable in the circumstances. The surgical mask impaired the young lady’s view of the abortionist’s face, and her entire observation of him at that time occurred under conditions hardly lending themselves to close attention or lasting memory. Her description of the man to the police not long after the operation was fragmentary. She failed to react to a picture of Kudish as one of a set of nine and affirmed that that was the man only when the picture was withdrawn from the set and singled out. This evidence the judge admitted. Her later identification of Kudish was through a one-way window at the police station when he was in practical effect alone in a room. This evidence the judge excluded. The sequence is not reassuring as to the reliability or integrity of the identification.