Back to Results

DOJ-OGR-00005853.jpg

Source: IMAGES  •  Size: 707.0 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 94.8%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 70 of 84 there are several similar quality photos in the book. (See Ex. A, photos a). In any event, these highly conclusory statements fall well short of transforming the careful confirmatory identification used in this case into an unduly suggestive procedure. The motion to suppress should be denied on this basis, and the identification should be admitted at trial, where the defendant will have a full opportunity to contest the persuasiveness of that evidence through cross-examination and attorney argument. See Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 973 (where there has been no showing of suggestiveness, “any question as to the reliability of the [identification] goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility”). Even if the “confirmatory identification” procedure was impermissibly suggestive as the defendant claims, which it was not, Minor Victim-4’s identification had clear independent reliability because Minor Victim-4 stated that she knew the defendant by name from previous interactions. For example, in Wiggins v. Greiner, the Second Circuit declined to address a disputed question about a confirmatory identification’s suggestiveness because the independent basis for the in-court identification was so clear. See Wiggins, 132 F. App’x 861, 864-66 (2d Cir. 2005) (witness saw defendant at distance of 50 feet under “streetlight illumination” but was familiar with defendant from seeing him previously in neighborhood); accord United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280, 288 (2d Cir. 1999) (officers’ in-court identifications reliable where officers had unobstructed views of the defendant selling narcotics on two occasions, one of which was during daylight at close range); United States v. Crumble, No. 18 Cr. 32 (ARR), 2018 WL 1737642, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2018) (collecting cases finding that “in-court identification is [] admissible, despite an improper pre-trial identification procedure, if the witness is familiar with the defendant 69 DOJ-OGR-00005853

Document Preview

DOJ-OGR-00005853.jpg

Click to view full size

Extracted Information

Dates

Document Details

Filename DOJ-OGR-00005853.jpg
File Size 707.0 KB
OCR Confidence 94.8%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,044 characters
Indexed 2026-02-03 17:03:55.142342