Court Opinion

ID: 9456200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:45:20.536319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:53.237792
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring):
The District Court ruled that witness Bailey’s stationhouse confrontation with appellant Richardson was “unnecessarily suggestive,” 1 but it permitted Bailey to identify Richardson during the trial because it found an “independent source” for the in-court identification in Bailey’s “ample opportunity to recognize Richardson at the scene of the crime.” 2 I concur in the affirmance of the convictions in this case because immediately after the crime (and prior to the tainted lineup) Bailey also gave the police a description of the robbers which was recorded on PD Form 251, and which fits Richardson well.3 In my view, the total evidence supplied “clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identifications were based upon observations of the suspect” 4 other than the constitutionally defective ones. Accordingly, I need not reach the difficult question whether an “opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act” 5 could, standing alone, provide *1160“clear and convincing” confirmation that a witness’ courtroom identification of the defendant is “independent” of the intervening taint.

. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967).

. See Williams v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 185, 409 F.2d 471 (1969); Cunningham v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 133, 409 F.2d 168 (1969) ; Bryson v. United States, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 120, 419 F.2d 695, 702 (1969) (Burger, J. concurring and dissenting) : “Since the witnesses had a prior opportunity to observe, there was plainly an independent source for the in-court identifications.” Cf. majority opinion at 1157-1158 supra.

. Among the pre-lineup tests of a witness’ recollection which comport with Wade are (1) an accurate description given by the witness shortly after the incident, see, e. g., Bryson v. United States, supra note 2, at 116, 419 F.2d at 698; Gregory v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 317, 324, 410 F.2d 1016, 1023 (1969) ; Clemons v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 27, 40, 408 F.2d 1230, 1243 (1969) ; and (2) the selection of the suspect’s picture in a properly conducted photo-identification, see, e. g., Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); Bryson v. United States, supra, at 118, 419 F.2d at 700; Clemons v. United States, supra, at 43, 408 F.2d at 1246; and (3) recognizing the suspect in a chance meeting, see, e. g., Long v. United States, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 311, 424 F.2d 799, 803 (No. 22,218; Dec. 18, 1969) ; Clemons v. United States, supra, at 41, 408 F.2d at 1244. But see Mason v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 280, 414 F.2d 1176 (1969).

. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 240, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967).

. Id. at 241, 87 S.Ct. at 1940. The Wade Court suggested “opportunity to observe” as one example of a “factor” in determining whether an “independent source” exists. Compare 388 U.S. at 241, 87 S.Ct. 1926, with the topic headings in Chapter IV (“Danger Signals” of erroneous identifications), P. Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases (1965). An “opportunity to observe” supplies the “source” for an identification, but under Wade a court must still determine whether there are reliable indications that the source is “independent” and untainted. Wall does not suggest that an “opportunity to observe” shows that an identification has not been contaminated by a suggestive procedure; his work is peppered with references to unreliable identifications springing from inadequate opportunities to observe the suspect, see, e. g., id. at 16, 20-22, 68, 85, 92-95, 112, 114-115, 125-128, 189-190, 194-197, 209-210, and he also reports “frequent” cases of misidentification based on “observations [made] under favorable conditions.” Id. at 7.