Court Opinion

ID: 9461037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:04:29.385145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:51.970520
License: Public Domain

OAKES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
The pretrial identification of appellant by Mrs. Gardner was unnecessarily and impermissibly suggestive. Under all of the circumstances, Mrs. Gardner’s subsequent in-court identification of the appellant as the third robber was unreliable and presented a substantial likelihood of an irreparable mistaken identification. Thus I believe that a new trial should be ordered under Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967); and our Second Circuit cases such as United States ex rel. Rivera v. McKendrick, 448 F.2d 30, 34 (2d Cir. 1971), and United States ex rel. Phipps v. Follette, 428 F.2d 912, 915 (2d Cir. 1970). See also United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967).
The majority concedes, as it is required to, that the show-up procedure used to identify the appellant was im-permissibly suggestive. There were three robbers in the Gardner apartment. Three days after the robbery, a lineup was conducted at the station house at which Mrs. Gardner selected Adderley, Polhill and Ulysses Bryant1 as the three. Several hours later, these three men were brought in individually in a three part show-up by the Assistant District Attorney whereupon Mrs. Gardner confirmed her identifications. Ninety minutes later, however, appellant, who was bearded and 39 years old (Bryant was cleanshaven and 25) was brought to appear alone in a show-up before Mrs. Gardner. She then retracted her prior identification of Bryant and identified the appellant. In so doing it seems clear that Mrs. Gardner must have been influenced by the police and prosecutor’s apparent belief — from the show-up of Lucas — that her prior identification of Bryant was mistaken and that the appellant was a participant in the robbery. Cf. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. at 196-197, 93 S.Ct. 375, and Foster v. California, 394 U.S. at 443, 89 S.Ct. 1127. The show-up was clearly suggestive, and, indeed, it was unnecessarily so; unlike the victim in Stovall, Mrs. Gardner was neither injured nor indisposed at the time of the idenification. Bryant and the others had been placed in a lineup earlier in the day. Neither the State nor the majority suggest any reason why the appellant could not also have been displayed to Mrs. Gardner in a lineup. See Note, Pretrial Identification Procedures — Wade to Gilbert to Stovall: Lower Courts Bobble the Ball, 55 Minn.L. Rev. 779, 789 (1971). See also Levine and Tapp, The Psychology of Criminal Identification: The Gap from Wade to Kirby, 121 U.Penn.L.Rev. 1079, 1081 (May 1973): “In fact the lineup procedure itself was developed by the British police because show-up confrontation was considered grossly suggestive and unfair.” See generally P. Wall, Eyewitness Identification in Criminal Cases (1965); N. Sobel, Eyewitness Identification, Legal and Practical Problems (1972).
I come then to the question whether, under the “totality of circumstances” the identification by Mrs. Gardner in court was sufficiently reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive. The teaching of Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. at 198-199, 93 S.Ct. 375, is that the factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidenti-fication include (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ de*6gree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’ prior identification of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. In my view, these factors were here insufficiently met so that, indeed, there was “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” See United States ex rel. Phipps v. Follette, 428 F.2d at 915.
First, Mrs. Gardner’s opportunity to observe the third robber at the time of the crime was minimal. Under her testimony the' third robber moved in and out of the apartment searching the various rooms of the apartment for money; he had no physical contact with her. Adderley had tied her to a bed with her face down. ■ She was so hysterical that she did not know how much time elapsed during the incident.
Her attention, moreover, was focused on Adderley, who had put a gun to her head as soon as the door was opened, and held the gun to her head throughout the entire incident, threatening to kill her on three different occasions. Under the “totality of circumstances,” her degree of attention to the third robber must have been minimal. See United States ex rel. Rivera v. McKendrick, 448 F.2d 30, 34 (2d Cir. 1971).
As to the third Neil v. Biggers factor, Mrs. Gardner apparently gave no prior description of the third robber, or, if she gave one, no record of it has been preserved. In view of the fact, however, that she first identified a cleanshaven 25-year-old as the third robber, we may take it that any prior description she might have given would have been substantially different from that of a 39-year-old bearded man.
The next factor is the level of certainty of the person making the identification, but the Court was speaking to an initial identification, not one as here where there was a prior identification of another person, dissimilar in appearance, as the criminal. Admittedly, Mrs. Gardner spoke with certainty when she identified appellant. Her level of certainty during the prior identification of Bryant, however, had also been quite high. She was definitive and positive in identifying him as the third robber who searched the apartment for money. The transcript of her station house identification contains little doubt on her part as to Bryant’s having been the third robber.2
At trial, to be sure, she did testify that she had been uncertain about Bryant. One can only suppose that this trial testimony was in explanation of her change of mind and change of identification. The fact that she was equally certain when she did ultimately identify Lucas does not, for me, carry much weight, because this was after an imper-missibly and unnecessarily suggestive show-up. Three days after the commission of the crime she was so angry (and properly so), or so upset or anxious, she was- apparently willing to identify anyone. Proof of this is that she made a mistaken identification of Bryant not once, but on two occasions on the very same day of her identification of Lucas.
Beyond this, her inability to make a reliable identification of Lucas is shown by the fact that she was apparently mistaken in her' belief that he had worn a hat during the commission of the crime. She testified that only one of the three men had worn a hat, and at the station house when Bryant was brought in for his show-up without a hat, she asked *7that he wear one. When he put a hat on, her identification was positive. The other witnesses — Mrs. Gardner’s husband and a detective who saw the robbers enter a car outside the building— indicated that only Polhill had been wearing a hat. If, as the majority says, Mrs. Gardner could not forget the faces of the robbers, which they claim made such an impression upon her, how could she misidentify Bryant and how could she think that the third robber was the one wearing a hat ?
It goes to make this case doubly compelling for a new trial that it was not until the trial that the defense learned that there had been a prior misidentification of Bryant. The defense wished to produce Bryant, presumably to show the jury how different his appearance was from Lucas’. While the majority says that this could have been accomplished by photographs or by examination of other witnesses, it is obvious that the production of Bryant himself would have been much the superior evidence, and there is no showing or indication that there were any photographs that would have been available upon diligent search. While the majority says that the defense did not even indicate what steps had been taken or would be taken to locate Bryant, the defense was not asked to do this by the court, and I cannot see what relevancy that has to whether or not the trial judge’s discretion should have been exercised in favor of granting the continuance, under Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964). See also United States v. Ellenbogen, 365 F.2d 982, 986 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 923, 87 S.Ct. 892, 17 L.Ed.2d 795 (1967).
There was very little other evidence implicating Lucas as the third robber, so that it cannot possibly be said — nor does the majority advance the suggestion — that the error in admitting Mrs. Gardner’s in-court identification testimony was harmless. See United States ex rel. Springle v. Follette, 435 F.2d 1380, 1384 n.4 (2d Cir. 1970). Detective Broughton’s identification of appellant was based only on several seconds of observation in the night, made from 150 feet away. The testimony of Adderley was inherently suspect and under New York law required corroboration, N.Y. Crim.Proc.Law § 60.22 (McKinney’s Consol.Laws, c. 11-A 1971); in addition, there was some doubt cast on his testimony on the basis of the promise made to him in return for his testimony as a prosecution witness. In any event, there was an inconsistency between Broughton’s testimony that he did not observe a fourth man in the car and was certain that there were three and Adderley’s to the effect that there was a fourth man in the car who never went into the apartment. The case against appellant relied heavily on Mrs. Gardner’s testimony. The jury was out for eight hours, indicating doubt on their part. The only way justice can be served, in my view, is by a new trial.
The majority seems to suggest that the factors which relate to the basic unreliability of Mrs. Gardner’s identification of the appellant are merely issues which the defense could have raised and did raise to the jury on cross-examination and summation. We are presented here, however, with such a compelling case of likely misidentification that the only way to remedy the potential harm to the defendant would be through the exclusion of Mrs. Gardner’s in-court identification.
The psychology of criminal identification is still in a state where a great deal of research has to be done — research by social scientists as well as by lawyers. See Marshall, Marquis and Oskamp, Effects of Kind of Question and Atmosphere of Interrogation on Accuracy and Completeness of Testimony, 84 Harv.L. Rev. 1620, 1639-40 (1971). See also Levine and Tapp, The Psychology of Criminal Identification: The Gap from Wade to Kirby, 121 U.Penn.L.Rev. at 1130. The best thinking on the subject is that “the dangers from fallible sense perception and memory and from suggestive influence are overwhelming.” *8Ibid. The fact that Neil v. Biggers, supra, and Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972), do narrow and are thought to cut back on Wade and Stovall does not in any way lessen our task as judges in arriving at fair and just decisions in identification cases. Here the eyewitness identification was exceedingly doubtful at best. It is true that this was a pre-PFade conviction and hence that no suppression hearing was required. We have all the more reason, however, to examine in depth whether or not a fair trial was had and whether or not Mrs. Gardner’s identification evidence was fairly admitted.
I would vote, as did Judge Breitel when the appeal was initially heard by the New York Court of Appeals,3 to reverse and to remand.

. Adderley pleaded guilty to a lesser charge with respect to the robbery aud subsequently testified for the prosecution at Lucas’ trial. Polhill was plainly guilty and was convicted at trial with Lucas. Bryant was misidentified.

. The transcript shows that she expressed • some initial uncertainty about identifying Bryant as the third robber. Once she saw him with a hat on, however, her identification was positive:
Q. Who is that man?
A. That’s one of the men that came to my house and held me up.
Q. What did he do?
A. lie ran around. lie was doing the searching. He was tearing up the house. He was looking to see if I had the money in the house.
Tr. 321.

. People v. Lucas, 28 N.Y.2d 761, 321 N.Y.S.2d 914, 269 N.E.2d 914, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 994, 92 S.Ct. 542, 30 L.Ed.2d 547 (1971).