Court Opinion

ID: 9516105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:34:54.297228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:33.071707
License: Public Domain

*622Williams, J.
(concurring). I concur with the holdings of my Brother Adams and generally with his very pertinent observations.
In particular I agree with his observation: "In this case, however, we have identification procedures prior to trial that are at least open to suspicion of unfairness * * * .” (Supra, p 619.) I would go further. This case antedates United States v Wade, 388 US 218; 87 S Ct 1926; 18 L Ed 2d 1149 (1967) which has only prospective application under Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293; 87 S Ct 1967; 18 L Ed 2d 1199 (1967). Nevertheless, this case illustrates why the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel and a meaningful confrontation at trial has resulted in the requirement of presence of counsel at pretrial identification procedures. My Brother Adams itemizes several of the problems in this case which I shall repeat before commenting on them:
"However, two of the witnesses recalled having been shown photos on the day of the showup and Fannie Evans stated that when she went to the police station for the showup, she was permitted to see defendant before the showup. T really didn’t look at the others [in the showup] because I saw him [defendant] before I even got there and I recognized him.’ When Gary Harbin viewed defendant at a showup, men used for it, besides the 32-year old defendant, were two teenagers and a 58-year old man.” (Supra, p 616 .)
The first point I wish to make is to emphasize that had the two witnesses not testified to having seen the photos on the day of the showup and just prior thereto; had Fannie Evans not stated she was permitted to see the defendant before the showup; and had the information not come to light as to the farcical form of showup employed for Gary Harbin, the defendant’s case would have *623been immeasurably weakened. However, had defendant had counsel on these occasions, counsel presumably would have become aware of these things for trial use, which is one of the reasons Wade requires counsel at that time.
The second point is that while this case antedates Wade and Wade is prospective only, the companion case to Wade, Stovall v Denno, supra, is applicable on the facts and is also retrospective. Stovall holds that whether or not counsel is present for pretrial identification procedures, if the identification procedures employed are "unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification,” then there has been a failure of due process and a "Wade hearing” is necessary to determine whether the identifying witness has an independent basis for testimony for "in-court” identification of the accused. Since this case involves a pre-indictment identification procedure, Kirby v Illinois, 406 US 682; 92 S Ct 1877; 32 L Ed 2d 411 (1972) does not require a per se exclusion of the out-of-court identification, but such testimony must be qualified under the normal evidentiary rules.
While this matter was not properly raised on appeal, since in any event the order in this case is to remand for new trial, these points should be considered as appropriate at such a trial.
This case strongly highlights a psychological and legal problem deserving the most serious consideration of the bench and bar. In reading the record and my Brother Adam’s opinion, one cannot escape the emphasis on what the witnesses at pretrial identification said and did. Such matters as whether or not an identifying witness did or did not identify the defendant; whether the identifying witness identified another person; whether the *624identification was "positive” or "hesitant”; what the identifying witness said; what the police records of the lineup do or do not show; etc., all are heavily stressed. And no wonder, because punishment or discharge depends on whether the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the witnesses identified the "right” man.
The defense, therefore, wants to show such things as that "although Matthews and Harbin swore at trial that Poe was the robber, they did not make such positive identifications during the lineups.” And the prosecution wants to include that "Mrs. Evans, when identifying Poe, said: 'That’s him with the trench coat on’ ”, and that "Mr. Johnson was quoted as saying: 'That’s him, that’s him.’ ”, (supra,\p|617) althoughj"Johnsonjand Evans picked out a picture of Poe and another man, 'Two-zero,’ but indicated that Poe came closest.”
From this emphasis on what happened and what was said at the pretrial identification procedures it is apparent that both parties thought the jury would be influenced by identifying witness’ impressions at the time nearest the crime. This actually is logically and psychologically sound. An important consideration underlining my concurrence in this case is the proposition that, all things being equal, identifications made prior to trial are inherently more reliable than those made "in court” ("That’s the man”). Wigmore has characterized in-court identifications as "violently suggestive.” Wig-more, Evidence — Corroboration by Witness’ Identification of an Accused on Arrest, 25 iLL L Rev 550, 550-551 (1931); see also 4 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed), § 1130; Comment, Prior Identiñcation Evidence & the Hearsay Objection, 30 Rocky Mt L Rev 332 (1958); Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Crimi*625nal Cases, pp 26-27,181 fn 2, and Chapter V (1971, 2d printing). However, in Gilbert v California, 388 US 263; 87 S Ct 1951; 18 L Ed 2d 1178 (1967), the United States Supreme Court made testimony as to pretrial identification procedures subject to per se exclusion if the defendant was without counsel. Kirby, supra, restricted this per se exclusion to post-"indictment” situations. This writer believes that the per se exclusionary rule should be eliminated entirely and an appropriate rule of special qualification of such evidence on the basis of the fairness of the procedures substituted.
One final observation: the photographic procedures resulted in Johnson, Evans and Ballard originally picking out not one, but two pictures, Poe and "Two-zero,” as the probable criminal, although "Poe came the closest.” The second time around Johnson, Evans and Matthew picked Poe "as being closest to the robber” (this writer’s emphasis) (p 614). In the actual lineup with Poe in it but "Two-zero” not in it "[according to the notations on the showup sheets, Johnson and Evans 'positively’ identified Poe. Harbin stated that although Poe looked like the robber, he could not testify to that in court. Matthews identified another man.” Under these circumstances I would hold in a future case that the failure to put a second person such as "Two-zero” in the lineup would constitute lack of due process under Stovall, unless the police were able to satisfy the trial judge that "Two-zero” was unavailable after diligent, honest effort to find him, or other circumstances indicate that "Two-zero” is not connected with the crime.
Black, J., did not sit in this case.