New York Law Review

Tag: Lineup Suggestiveness

  • People v. Perkins, 27 N.Y.3d 435 (2016): Suggestiveness of Lineups When Defendant Possesses a Distinctive Feature

    People v. Perkins, 27 N.Y.3d 435 (2016)

    A lineup is unduly suggestive if the defendant has a distinctive feature, such as dreadlocks, that makes him stand out, even if that feature was not mentioned in the witness’s prior description of the perpetrator.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed the suggestiveness of a lineup where the defendant was the only participant with dreadlocks, a distinctive feature. The court held that the lineup was unduly suggestive, regardless of whether the witness mentioned the defendant’s dreadlocks in their initial description to the police. The court emphasized that the totality of the circumstances must be considered when assessing the suggestiveness of a lineup. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, finding that the lower court erred in determining that a lineup was not unduly suggestive just because the witness had not mentioned the distinctive feature in their initial description. This case highlights the importance of conducting fair lineups to avoid suggestive identification procedures that could lead to misidentification.

    Facts

    After being identified as a suspect, the defendant was placed in photo arrays and lineups. In the relevant lineups, the defendant was the only participant with long dreadlocks. Four robbery victims identified the defendant in the lineups. Two of the victims had described the perpetrator as having dreadlocks, while the other two had not. The Supreme Court suppressed the lineup identifications for the two victims who had mentioned dreadlocks and not for the others. The Appellate Division affirmed, focusing on whether the distinctive feature was part of the complainants’ descriptions. All four victims identified the defendant in court, but the defendant was acquitted of the robbery counts with respect to two of the victims and convicted of the counts with respect to the others.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the lineup identifications for two victims but denied it for the others. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted the defendant leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a lineup is unduly suggestive when the defendant possesses a distinctive feature, even if the witness did not mention that feature in their prior description of the perpetrator?

    Holding

    1. Yes, because a lineup’s suggestiveness should be determined by considering all circumstances to determine whether the lineup created a substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals stated that a bright-line rule that a distinctive feature only renders a lineup unduly suggestive if it was mentioned in the witness’s prior description would be unworkable and unwise. Instead, the court emphasized that the focus should be on whether the lineup created a substantial likelihood of misidentification. The court found the lineup was unduly suggestive as the defendant was the only person with long dreadlocks. The court referenced its prior decision in People v. Chipp, stating that it must consider all circumstances to determine suggestiveness. The court held that there was no record support for the lower courts’ conclusion. The court held that, as a matter of law, a witness’s failure to mention a distinctive feature in his or her initial description is not necessarily the determinative factor in assessing a lineup’s suggestivity. The Court reversed the Appellate Division, ordered that both lineups should have been suppressed, and remanded to Supreme Court for further proceedings.

    Practical Implications

    This decision clarifies the standard for determining the suggestiveness of a lineup in New York. Law enforcement must be cautious when conducting lineups and ensure that distinctive features do not make the defendant stand out. Prosecutors must be prepared to establish an independent basis for in-court identifications if a lineup is found to be unduly suggestive. Defense attorneys should challenge lineups where the defendant is the only participant with a distinctive feature, regardless of whether the witness mentioned that feature in their initial description. This case emphasizes that a totality of the circumstances test must be applied. Post-Perkins, courts must consider all factors when assessing the reliability of an identification procedure and not rely solely on the witness’s prior description.

  • People v. Jackson, 98 N.Y.2d 555 (2002): Effect of Lost Lineup Photo on Appeal

    People v. Jackson, 98 N.Y.2d 555 (2002)

    When a lineup photograph is lost after a Wade hearing, the appellate court must determine if the exhibit is of substantial importance and whether the information it contains is otherwise available in the record; if the information is available, the loss of the exhibit does not prevent proper appellate review.

    Summary

    Ronald Jackson was convicted of robbery, assault, and weapons charges stemming from an armed robbery. The key issue on appeal was the effect of the post-Wade hearing loss of a lineup photograph on the defendant’s challenge to the hearing court’s determination that the lineup was not unduly suggestive. The Court of Appeals held that the loss of the photograph did not automatically require reversal, as long as the information contained in the photograph was otherwise available in the record for appellate review. Because a photocopy of the lineup was available and used at trial, the loss of the original photograph did not prevent meaningful appellate review.

    Facts

    Jackson and a co-defendant robbed two men at gunpoint. Police, responding to the scene, traced the getaway car to the co-defendant’s mother. They found Jackson near the car. The shooting victim described the assailant to police. A detective, noting Jackson’s age, height, and weight, arranged a lineup with four fillers of similar size and skin tone. Jackson chose his position. The detective photographed the lineup and noted the fillers’ ages. The victim identified Jackson in the lineup. Before trial, Jackson moved to suppress the identification testimony, arguing that the fillers were much older. The trial court denied the motion after examining the photograph.

    Procedural History

    The defendant and co-defendant were indicted on multiple counts of robbery and assault. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the identification testimony from a lineup. The trial court denied the motion. At trial, a detective testified the original lineup photo was misplaced; a photocopy was admitted without objection. The jury convicted Jackson on robbery, assault, and weapons counts but acquitted him of attempted murder. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the loss of a lineup photograph after a Wade hearing automatically requires reversal of a conviction when the defendant argues the lineup was unduly suggestive.

    2. Whether an age discrepancy between a defendant and the fillers in a lineup, without more, is sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification.

    Holding

    1. No, because an appellate court must determine if the exhibit is of ‘substantial importance’ and if the information it contains is accurately reflected in the record. If the information is reflected in the record and its accuracy is not disputed, the loss of the exhibit itself would not prevent proper appellate review.

    2. No, because an age discrepancy alone is not enough to make a lineup unduly suggestive, absent a showing of other factors that would make the defendant stand out.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that the loss of the lineup photograph did not preclude meaningful appellate review. The Court cited People v. Yavru-Sakuk, 98 N.Y.2d 56 (2002), for the principle that when a trial exhibit is lost, an appellate court must determine if the exhibit is of “substantial importance” to the issues in the case. If so, the court must then determine whether the information contained in the exhibit is accurately reflected elsewhere in the record. Here, the Court found that a photocopy of the lineup photograph, admitted into evidence at trial without objection and used by defense counsel, provided sufficient information for appellate review. The Court emphasized that “an age discrepancy between a defendant and the fillers in a lineup, without more, is not ‘sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification’ (Chipp, 75 NY2d at 336).” The Court also noted that the victim never mentioned the perpetrator’s age in the description provided to police. The Court cautioned that the original lineup photograph is preferable and that counsel and trial courts should take great care in preserving exhibits that play a key role in a defendant’s case.

  • People v. James, 84 N.Y.2d 1042 (1995): Preserving Claims of Prosecutorial Misconduct

    People v. James, 84 N.Y.2d 1042 (1995)

    A claim of prosecutorial misconduct during a lineup procedure, seeking a sanction beyond suppression of the lineup identification, must be preserved by a specific motion (e.g., a Clayton motion) to be reviewable on appeal; otherwise, the claim is waived.

    Summary

    The defendant, convicted of second-degree murder, argued that the trial court erred by not imposing a sanction on the prosecution for misconduct during a lineup, specifically, using fillers significantly older than the 15-year-old defendant and misrepresenting their ages in the lineup report. While the lineup identifications were suppressed due to undue suggestion, the defendant claimed the court should have dismissed the indictment or suppressed in-court identifications. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to preserve the prosecutorial misconduct claim by not raising it in a separate Clayton motion after the Wade hearing, which focused solely on suggestiveness and independent source.

    Facts

    A 15-year-old defendant was placed in a lineup with five fillers who were significantly older (ages 28-42). The lineup report falsely stated that the fillers were teenagers. At a Wade hearing, this discrepancy was revealed. The trial court determined that the lineup was unduly suggestive and suppressed the lineup identifications.

    Procedural History

    The trial court suppressed the lineup identifications after a Wade hearing. The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that further sanctions should have been imposed for the prosecutorial misconduct.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant, after successfully suppressing lineup identifications due to suggestiveness, must make a separate motion (e.g., a Clayton motion) to preserve a claim that the prosecution’s misconduct during the lineup warrants additional sanctions, such as dismissal of the indictment or suppression of in-court identifications.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant failed to raise the prosecutorial misconduct claim in a separate motion, the claim is unpreserved for appellate review. The initial Wade hearing was limited to the issues of suggestiveness and independent source.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that the Wade hearing was explicitly limited to determining suggestiveness and independent source. The court and counsel agreed that the Isaacson claim (regarding prosecutorial misconduct) was beyond the scope of the Wade proceeding. The defendant was advised to raise the prosecutorial misconduct claim through a future Clayton motion. While defense counsel claimed at the Wade hearing that in-court identifications should be suppressed, this claim was based on the *taint* of the suggestive lineup, an issue appropriately resolved at the Wade hearing, and was distinct from a claim of prosecutorial misconduct. The court noted that the record did not show that the defense ever made a subsequent Clayton motion or otherwise sought to litigate the issue of sanctions for the People’s misconduct. Because the independent source for the in-court identifications was established, that issue was beyond further review. Therefore, the prosecutorial misconduct claim was unpreserved. The court stated, “The record does not establish that the defense ever made a subsequent Clayton motion or in any way sought to litigate the separate question of an appropriate sanction for the People’s misconduct at any other time. Accordingly, that claim is unpreserved for our review.”

  • People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327 (1990): Scope of Compulsory Process at Pretrial Wade Hearings

    People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327 (1990)

    A defendant does not have an unqualified right to call an identifying witness at a pretrial Wade hearing to challenge the suggestiveness of a lineup; the decision to allow such testimony rests within the sound discretion of the hearing court.

    Summary

    Chipp was convicted of sexual abuse and related crimes. At a combined Huntley-Wade hearing, the trial court denied Chipp’s request to call the 10-year-old complaining witness to testify about the suggestiveness of the pre-trial lineup. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that while defendants have the right to call witnesses at criminal proceedings, this right is not absolute at a Wade hearing, which is meant only to determine the suggestiveness of a pretrial identification, and is subject to the discretion of the hearing judge.

    Facts

    Shanica F., a 10-year-old girl, was sexually abused and nearly sodomized by a man she later identified as Chipp. The incident occurred on April 7, 1986, in a building on West 131st Street in Manhattan. Shanica described her attacker to the police. Shermain Thompson, a tenant in the building, recognized the description as matching “Apache,” a friend of her brother, whom she had seen in the building earlier that day. Two days later, police found civilians holding Chipp at the same building. They were told that Chipp was the man who had “raped” the girl. Detective Francisci, who was assigned to the case, arranged a lineup where Shanica identified Chipp within 10 seconds.

    Procedural History

    Chipp was convicted in the trial court. Prior to trial, a combined Huntley-Wade hearing was held regarding the admissibility of Chipp’s statements and Shanica’s lineup identification. The hearing court denied Chipp’s request to call Shanica as a witness at the hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the hearing court’s refusal to allow the defendant to call the complaining witness to testify at a combined Huntley and Wade hearing denied him a constitutional or statutory right to present relevant evidence on the issue of the suggestiveness of a pretrial lineup identification procedure.

    Holding

    No, because any right of compulsory process at a Wade hearing may be outweighed by countervailing policy concerns, properly within the discretion and control of the hearing judge.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that while CPL 60.15(1) affords a defendant the right to call witnesses at a criminal proceeding, that right is not absolute. The Court emphasized that a Wade hearing, unlike a trial, does not involve a determination of guilt or innocence but rather determines whether a pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive. The Court reasoned that according an absolute right to call an identifying witness at a Wade hearing would enable defendants to harass identifying witnesses and transform the hearing into a discovery proceeding. The court noted that no indicia of suggestiveness was presented to the hearing court. The court reasoned that the complainant’s testimony on the varied complexions of the subjects of the lineup would only have been cumulative, as the court already had a photograph of the lineup before it. The court held that the hearing judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s request to call the complainant at the Wade hearing. The Court stated, “Indeed we have held in respect to pretrial hearings more directly addressing the guilt or innocence of an accused that a defendant’s right to require the production of a witness with relevant testimony could be outweighed by countervailing policy considerations (People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47, 52-53).”