New York Law Review

Tag: Suggestive identification

  • People v. Rivera, 27 N.Y.2d 286 (1970): Coram Nobis and Retroactive Application of Identification Procedures

    People v. Rivera, 27 N.Y.2d 286 (1970)

    A defendant seeking to vacate a conviction via coram nobis based on a tainted pretrial identification procedure must demonstrate that the opportunity to assert the due process violation was substantially impaired or denied at the time of the original trial.

    Summary

    Rivera sought to vacate his 1963 conviction through coram nobis, arguing that the pretrial identification procedure tainted his subsequent in-court identification, violating his due process rights. He argued that he should have been afforded a hearing on the issue of taint, even though his trial predated People v. Ballott. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of coram nobis, holding that while the pretrial identification procedure was improper, Rivera failed to demonstrate that his due process rights could not have been vindicated under the law existing at the time of his trial. The court emphasized that coram nobis requires a showing that the opportunity to assert a fundamental constitutional right was substantially impaired or denied.

    Facts

    Rivera was convicted in 1963. He later sought to vacate the conviction via coram nobis, alleging that the pretrial identification procedure was “unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification,” thereby tainting the in-court identification. The facts supporting this claim of a suggestive pretrial identification procedure were uncontested by the prosecution.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was originally convicted in 1963. He then filed a coram nobis proceeding to vacate that conviction. The coram nobis court denied the writ without a hearing. This denial was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant can successfully challenge a conviction via coram nobis based on a pretrial identification procedure that allegedly tainted a subsequent in-court identification, when the trial predated the establishment of a specific procedural remedy (a preliminary hearing on the issue of taint), if the defendant had other avenues to challenge the identification procedure at the time of trial?

    Holding

    No, because the defendant failed to demonstrate that his due process rights related to the allegedly tainted identification could not have been vindicated under the law existing at the time of his original trial.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that while United States v. Wade and its progeny established stricter standards for pretrial identification procedures and provided for preliminary hearings to determine taint, these standards are not automatically applicable retroactively via coram nobis. The court acknowledged that in direct appeals, it had required that the issue of taint be resolved at a separate hearing outside the presence of the jury. However, the court emphasized that this procedure is not constitutionally required and that coram nobis requires a showing that the opportunity to assert a fundamental constitutional right was substantially impaired or denied. The court stated, “coram nobis requires, in addition to the assertion of a fundamental constitutional right, that the opportunity to assert the same has been substantially impaired or denied”.

    The court noted that Rivera could have challenged the identification procedure at trial, even without the benefit of a formal Wade hearing. He could have excepted to the identification and developed its alleged suggestiveness off the record. His decision to forego these routes suggested a trial strategy. Therefore, the court concluded that the alleged due process violation could have been vindicated under the law as it existed prior to the decision in Ballott. Absent such a showing that the claimed due process violation could not have been vindicated under the law as it existed prior to Ballott, the conviction cannot be disturbed.

    The court distinguished between direct appeals and collateral attacks via coram nobis, emphasizing the intrinsic limitations of the writ itself. The court implicitly balances the need to correct potential injustices against the need for finality in judgments, particularly where the defendant had opportunities to raise the issue at trial.

  • People v. Rivera, 22 N.Y.2d 453 (1968): Admissibility of Identification Evidence After Hospital Confrontation

    People v. Rivera, 22 N.Y.2d 453 (1968)

    Where witnesses have ample opportunity to observe a defendant during the commission of a crime, and their in-court identification is certain and independent of a prior hospital identification, the in-court identification is admissible even if the hospital identification procedure may have been suggestive.

    Summary

    Rivera was convicted of robbery. Two witnesses, a store clerk and a customer, identified him at trial. The defense introduced evidence that both witnesses had previously identified Rivera at a hospital shortly after his arrest. Rivera argued this hospital identification was unduly suggestive. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the witnesses had a sufficient independent basis for their in-court identifications due to their ample opportunity to observe Rivera during the crime, rendering the hospital identification’s potential suggestiveness harmless.

    Facts

    A grocery store was robbed. During the robbery, the store clerk and a customer had a clear view of the defendant in a well-lit store for approximately three minutes, from a distance of one to five feet. The customer was shot during the robbery. Shortly after Rivera’s arrest, police brought him to the hospital where the wounded customer was being treated to be identified. Both the customer and the clerk separately identified Rivera at the hospital. At trial, both witnesses identified Rivera. The defense introduced evidence of the hospital identification but did not object to the trial identifications themselves.

    Procedural History

    Rivera was convicted at trial. He appealed, arguing that the hospital identification procedure was unduly suggestive and tainted the subsequent in-court identifications. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding no violation of Rivera’s constitutional rights.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the in-court identification testimony of witnesses who previously identified the defendant in a potentially suggestive hospital setting is admissible when the witnesses had an independent basis for their identification based on their observations during the crime.

    Holding

    Yes, because the witnesses had ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the commission of the crime, and their in-court identifications were certain and independent of the prior hospital identification.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that the witnesses had a clear and prolonged opportunity to observe the defendant during the robbery under good lighting conditions. The court distinguished this case from those where the identification was uncertain or the opportunity to observe was limited. The court reasoned that the hospital identification, while potentially suggestive, did not taint the in-court identifications because the witnesses’ trial testimony was based on their independent recollection of the events during the robbery. The court quoted Stovall v. Denno, stating that viewing the “totality of the circumstance” no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights has been demonstrated. The court also pointed to the practical necessity of the hospital identification, given the uncertainty of the wounded customer’s condition. The court contrasted the facts with cases like People v. Ballott and People v. Brown. The Court distinguished those cases by noting that, unlike in those instances, the witnesses here had a substantial opportunity to observe the defendant during the crime itself. The court emphasized that the focus should be on whether the in-court identification had an independent source, untainted by the prior identification procedure. The court found that because the witnesses had ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the commission of the crime, their testimony was not based on or tainted by potentially misleading circumstances in the earlier identification.