4 N.Y.3d 777 (2005)
When a pretrial lineup identification is deemed unduly suggestive, an in-court identification by the same witness is inadmissible unless the prosecution establishes an independent basis for the in-court identification, untainted by the suggestive lineup.
Summary
Wilson was convicted based on an eyewitness identification. The eyewitness identified Wilson in a lineup shortly after viewing Wilson’s photograph shown to him by a police officer. Wilson moved to suppress the lineup and any in-court identification. The trial court denied the motion, finding the lineup was not tainted. The appellate court reversed, finding the lineup unduly suggestive. However, the appellate court upheld the conviction, concluding there was an independent basis for the in-court identification. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court had not actually made a finding of an independent basis, and remanded for a hearing on whether such a basis existed.
Facts
An eyewitness identified Wilson in a pretrial lineup.
Prior to the lineup, a police officer showed the eyewitness a photograph of Wilson.
Wilson moved to suppress the lineup identification and any potential in-court identification.
The trial court denied the motion, finding the lineup untainted by the photo viewing.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted Wilson.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s finding that the lineup was not unduly suggestive but affirmed the conviction, stating that the trial court correctly found an independent basis for the in-court identification.
Wilson appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether an in-court identification is admissible when the pretrial lineup identification is deemed unduly suggestive and the trial court has not made an explicit finding regarding an independent source for the in-court identification.
Holding
No, because the trial court did not take the additional step of determining whether an independent source existed for the eyewitness’s in-court identification, the Appellate Division erred in concluding the trial court had “correctly found” that the eyewitness had an independent source for his in-court identification testimony.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that because the trial court never explicitly determined whether an independent source existed for the in-court identification, the Appellate Division erred in concluding that the trial court had “correctly found” such a basis.
The Court emphasized that the Appellate Division could make a de novo independent source determination based on evidence from the suppression hearing but that the inquiry in this case was too truncated to allow for such a determination. The Court noted, “Because Supreme Court never took the additional step of determining whether an independent source existed for the eyewitness’s in-court identification, Supreme Court cannot be said to have ruled “correctly” when it never ruled at all.”
The Court reiterated the importance of the prosecution presenting independent source evidence at a Wade hearing to avoid the risk of completely renewed proceedings, quoting People v. Burts, 78 N.Y.2d 20, 25 (1991) that, in light of the “risk for completely renewed proceedings” whenever a pretrial identification is challenged, the People are generally well-advised to come forward with any independent source evidence at a
Wade hearing so that the suppression court may, where appropriate, rule in the alternative.
This demonstrates a practical consideration for prosecutors to present all available evidence during the initial suppression hearing.
The remedy was to reverse the conviction and remand the case to the Supreme Court for an independent source hearing prior to retrial.