New York Law Review

Tag: Tainted Identification

  • People v. Green, 78 N.Y.2d 1029 (1991): Admissibility of Identification Testimony After Improper Photo Identification

    People v. Green, 78 N.Y.2d 1029 (1991)

    When the prosecution fails to provide timely notice of a photographic identification, resulting in suppression of in-court identification, subsequent testimony about observing the defendant being chased near the crime scene is inadmissible if it relies on the tainted identification.

    Summary

    In this case, the New York Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of identification testimony after the prosecution failed to provide timely notice of a photographic identification. A grocery store was robbed, and the clerk, Saleh, identified the defendant in a photo array. Due to the lack of timely notice, the in-court identification was suppressed. However, the trial court allowed Saleh to testify that the person he saw being chased by police near the store was the same person who committed the robbery. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that this testimony was also inadmissible because it was tainted by the improper photo identification, and without this testimony, the case rested solely on the store owner’s testimony, which was insufficient, as shown by the defendant’s acquittal on a related charge where only the owner testified.

    Facts

    A Brooklyn grocery store was robbed on July 8, 1988. The owner and clerk, Nasser Saleh, provided a description of the robber to the police. Four days later, the owner saw the defendant on the street and alerted a nearby officer. Saleh, inside the store, saw police chasing the defendant just before his arrest. The day after the arrest, police showed Saleh a photograph of the defendant, and Saleh identified him as the robber.

    Procedural History

    The People failed to provide timely notice of the photographic identification, leading the trial court to suppress Saleh’s in-court identification. However, the court allowed Saleh to testify that the person he observed being chased on July 12 was the person who committed the July 8 robbery. The defendant appealed, arguing that this testimony was also inadmissible. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the testimony of a witness, identifying the defendant as the person he saw being chased near the crime scene, is admissible when the witness’s prior photographic identification of the defendant was suppressed due to the prosecution’s failure to provide timely notice.

    Holding

    No, because the testimony was tainted by the prior improper photo identification, and there was no independent basis to demonstrate the perception testimony was untainted.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that allowing Saleh to testify that the person he saw being chased was the same person who committed the robbery was reversible error. The court emphasized that without the improper identification testimony, the case relied entirely on the store owner’s testimony. The court pointed to the defendant’s acquittal on a second related robbery charge, where only the owner testified, to highlight the weakness of the owner’s testimony alone. The court distinguished the present case from situations where a witness had communicated their perception of the defendant to the police prior to the tainted identification procedure. The Court cited People v. Myrick, 66 NY2d 903 and People v. Sanders, 66 NY2d 906. Here, there was no evidence that Saleh communicated to the police that the person he saw being arrested on July 12 was the same person he saw commit the robbery on July 8 *before* the improper photo identification. The court stated that “there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the perception testimony was untainted by the improper photo identification procedure.” Thus, the court reversed the order and ordered a new trial, emphasizing the need to exclude testimony influenced by inadmissible identification procedures. This case underscores the importance of proper notice and the exclusion of tainted evidence to ensure a fair trial.

  • People v. Gonzalez and Castellano, 27 N.Y.2d 53 (1970): Admissibility of Identification Testimony Following Suggestive Pretrial Procedures

    People v. Gonzalez and Castellano, 27 N.Y.2d 53 (1970)

    Pretrial identification procedures that are unnecessarily suggestive and create a substantial likelihood of misidentification can taint subsequent in-court identifications, rendering them inadmissible unless the prosecution proves by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification has an independent source.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether in-court identifications of the defendants were tainted by suggestive pretrial identification procedures. The dissent argued that a showup where police told witnesses “we caught this man, the robber of your store” and showing witnesses photographs of the defendants shortly before trial (16 months after the robbery) were impermissibly suggestive. The dissent concluded that the case should be remanded to determine whether the in-court identifications were influenced by these tainted procedures, especially since the witnesses’ initial observations were brief and made during a stressful robbery.

    Facts

    A robbery occurred, and sixteen months later, witnesses were shown photographs of the defendants just before they were to identify them in court. One witness initially gave the police a wrong description of one of the defendants. Another defendant, Castellano, had a full beard at the time of the robbery but was clean-shaven in the photograph shown to the witness before trial. Two witnesses viewed Castellano in a showup where police stated, “[w]e caught this man, the robber of your store.” One witness admitted he would not have been able to identify Castellano in court without the pretrial procedures.

    Procedural History

    The defendants were convicted of robbery based, in part, on eyewitness identifications. The dissenting judge in the New York Court of Appeals argued that the pretrial identification procedures were so suggestive that the in-court identifications were potentially tainted, requiring a hearing to determine the admissibility of the identification testimony.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the pretrial identification procedures (a showup and the showing of photographs shortly before trial) were so suggestive as to taint the subsequent in-court identifications, requiring a hearing to determine the independent source of the in-court identifications.

    Holding

    No, because the majority found that, on the present record, the in-court identifications were based on observations made at the scene of the crime, and the dissent failed to demonstrate that the identifications were tainted by the unnecessarily suggestive pretrial procedures.

    Court’s Reasoning

    Chief Judge Fuld, in dissent, argued that the pretrial identification procedures were highly suggestive and prejudicial. The dissent emphasized that the witness, Mrs. D’Amora, had only a brief and frightening encounter with Gonzalez, and she initially gave a wrong description to the police. Regarding Castellano, the dissent highlighted the suggestive showup where the police declared, “this was the robber of your store,” and the fact that the witnesses were shown photographs of Castellano just before entering the courtroom. The dissent quoted United States ex rel. Phipps v. Follette, 428 F.2d 912, stating:

    “Lapse of time between the crime and the confrontation is also important; the longer the interval, the greater the dangers that the initial image will have dimmed and that the second image will play a significant role. Also, a long interval between the initial observation and the trial coupled with an improper confrontation a comparatively short time before the witness appears in court enhances the danger that he may be relying on his most recent encounter.”

    The dissent believed that the prosecution failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the in-court identifications had independent sources. Referencing Foster v. California, 394 U. S. 440, 442, supra; Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377, 384; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293, 302; the dissent contended that there was a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, warranting a hearing to determine the impact of the pretrial procedures on the in-court identifications. The dissent emphasized that the witnesses’ observations occurred “but for a few minutes during a frightening and upsetting episode.”