People v. McCullers, 38 N.Y.2d 783 (1975)
When a pre-trial identification procedure is unduly suggestive, an in-court identification is permissible only if the prosecution proves by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification is based on a source independent of the suggestive procedure.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of an in-court identification following a suggestive pre-trial identification. The court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the witness’s in-court identification had a source independent of a suggestive encounter orchestrated by the police. A taxi driver, unable to initially identify the defendant, was later prompted by police before a court appearance. The dissent argued the witness’s initial inability to identify the defendant, combined with the suggestive circumstances, undermined the reliability of the in-court identification, requiring reversal of the conviction.
Facts
Ernest Bush, a taxi driver, was robbed by two men. Initially, Bush could not identify McCullers, one of the alleged robbers, at the police station. Three weeks later, a police officer informed Bush that they had apprehended the second perpetrator, McCullers, who was the same individual brought to the station house previously. Shortly before Bush was to sign a complaint, the officer reiterated that McCullers was the suspect. Bush then identified McCullers in court after observing him being escorted by the police officer.
Procedural History
Following McCullers’ conviction, the case reached the New York Court of Appeals. The court considered whether the in-court identification was tainted by the prior suggestive identification procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the witness’s in-court identification was based on a source completely independent of the suggestive Criminal Court identification.
Holding
No, because the suggestive pre-trial procedure tainted the in-court identification and the prosecution failed to prove an independent source for the in-court identification.
Court’s Reasoning
The court focused on whether the prosecution had demonstrated an independent source for the in-court identification, citing United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218. The factors to be considered include the prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act, any discrepancies between pre-lineup descriptions and the defendant’s actual description, prior identification of another person, identification by picture prior to lineup, failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion, and the lapse of time between the act and the lineup identification.
The dissent argued that, despite Bush’s opportunity to observe the robbers, his initial failure to identify McCullers was critical. The dissent highlighted the witness’s admission that his identification rested partially on his observation of McCullers during the suggestive station house showup. As the dissent stated, “Fairly considered the People’s proof strongly suggests that if Bush formed any impression of the other man it was at best a faint image which slowly emerged and only fully developed in the light of police suggestion.” The dissent concluded that the witness’s opportunity to observe should not have been given weight and that the prosecutor failed to show, by clear and convincing proof, an independent source for the identification.