You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
"full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 100 of 127 LB1TMAX3 the defense to engage in the full set of questions that counsel has indicated, but for purposes of the in limine motion, it's denied. Defense 19. Here, the defense seeks to suppress alleged Victim-4's identification of Ms. Maxwell on the ground that the government used unduly suggestive photo array procedures that violate due process rights. I am prepared to deny this motion. Eyewitness identifications should be excluded when improper police conduct created a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, (2012). I follow a two-step analysis in ruling on the admissibility of identification evidence. First, I must determine whether the pretrial identification procedures were unduly suggestive. Some examples of suggestive procedures include using a very small number of photographs, making suggestive comments, or the display of the accused in a way that so stood out from all other photographs to suggest to an identifying eyewitness that the person was more likely to be the culprit. See, United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, (2d Cir. 1992). Looking at the photo array, neither the photos used or the procedure itself was unduly suggestive. The array contained a sufficient number of photos larger than many arrays that courts have held were not unduly suggestive. Defense's SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007151",
"content": "LB1TMAX3 the defense to engage in the full set of questions that counsel has indicated, but for purposes of the in limine motion, it's denied. Defense 19. Here, the defense seeks to suppress alleged Victim-4's identification of Ms. Maxwell on the ground that the government used unduly suggestive photo array procedures that violate due process rights. I am prepared to deny this motion. Eyewitness identifications should be excluded when improper police conduct created a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, (2012). I follow a two-step analysis in ruling on the admissibility of identification evidence. First, I must determine whether the pretrial identification procedures were unduly suggestive. Some examples of suggestive procedures include using a very small number of photographs, making suggestive comments, or the display of the accused in a way that so stood out from all other photographs to suggest to an identifying eyewitness that the person was more likely to be the culprit. See, United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, (2d Cir. 1992). Looking at the photo array, neither the photos used or the procedure itself was unduly suggestive. The array contained a sufficient number of photos larger than many arrays that courts have held were not unduly suggestive. Defense's",
20
+
"position": "main content"
21
+
},
22
+
{
23
+
"type": "printed",
24
+
"content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
25
+
"position": "footer"
26
+
},
27
+
{
28
+
"type": "printed",
29
+
"content": "DOJ-OGR-00007151",
30
+
"position": "footer"
31
+
}
32
+
],
33
+
"entities": {
34
+
"people": [
35
+
"Ms. Maxwell",
36
+
"Victim-4"
37
+
],
38
+
"organizations": [
39
+
"SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
40
+
],
41
+
"locations": [
42
+
"New Hampshire"
43
+
],
44
+
"dates": [
45
+
"11/15/21",
46
+
"2012"
47
+
],
48
+
"reference_numbers": [
49
+
"1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
50
+
"Document 465",
51
+
"DOJ-OGR-00007151"
52
+
]
53
+
},
54
+
"additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is typed, and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes a case number, document number, and filing date."
"full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 101 of 127\nLB1TMAX3\n\nargument that the Ms. Maxwell's photo looks like a mugshot and is different from the others doesn't persuade me here. Alleged Victim-4 identified at least one other photo in the array that she thought could be Ms. Maxwell but she ultimately chose Ms. Maxwell's photo, and there were several photos in the array that were of roughly the same quality and angle as Ms. Maxwell's photo.\n\nThe defense fails to identify any suggestive comments made during the identification that would deem the procedures unduly suggestive. The government appears to have asked whether the individual recognized anyone in the book. So I conclude the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive.\n\nEven assuming the photo array was unduly suggestive, the identification here had independent reliability factors I must consider under the totality of circumstances that include the opportunity of the witness to view the individual at the time of the alleged crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of the the witness's prior description of the individual, the level of uncertainty demonstrated, the length of time between the alleged crime and the confrontation. See, Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, (1972).\n\nHere, the alleged Victim-4 had the opportunity to view Ms. Maxwell. They interacted several times over the span of years. As the government points out, the alleged interactions\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007152",
"content": "argument that the Ms. Maxwell's photo looks like a mugshot and is different from the others doesn't persuade me here. Alleged Victim-4 identified at least one other photo in the array that she thought could be Ms. Maxwell but she ultimately chose Ms. Maxwell's photo, and there were several photos in the array that were of roughly the same quality and angle as Ms. Maxwell's photo.",
25
+
"position": "body"
26
+
},
27
+
{
28
+
"type": "printed",
29
+
"content": "The defense fails to identify any suggestive comments made during the identification that would deem the procedures unduly suggestive. The government appears to have asked whether the individual recognized anyone in the book. So I conclude the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive.",
30
+
"position": "body"
31
+
},
32
+
{
33
+
"type": "printed",
34
+
"content": "Even assuming the photo array was unduly suggestive, the identification here had independent reliability factors I must consider under the totality of circumstances that include the opportunity of the witness to view the individual at the time of the alleged crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of the the witness's prior description of the individual, the level of uncertainty demonstrated, the length of time between the alleged crime and the confrontation. See, Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, (1972).",
35
+
"position": "body"
36
+
},
37
+
{
38
+
"type": "printed",
39
+
"content": "Here, the alleged Victim-4 had the opportunity to view Ms. Maxwell. They interacted several times over the span of years. As the government points out, the alleged interactions",
40
+
"position": "body"
41
+
},
42
+
{
43
+
"type": "printed",
44
+
"content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
45
+
"position": "footer"
46
+
},
47
+
{
48
+
"type": "printed",
49
+
"content": "DOJ-OGR-00007152",
50
+
"position": "footer"
51
+
}
52
+
],
53
+
"entities": {
54
+
"people": [
55
+
"Ms. Maxwell",
56
+
"Victim-4",
57
+
"Neil"
58
+
],
59
+
"organizations": [
60
+
"SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
61
+
],
62
+
"locations": [],
63
+
"dates": [
64
+
"11/15/21",
65
+
"1972"
66
+
],
67
+
"reference_numbers": [
68
+
"1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
69
+
"Document 465",
70
+
"409 U.S. 188",
71
+
"DOJ-OGR-00007152"
72
+
]
73
+
},
74
+
"additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is typed, and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document is from a court case involving Ms. Maxwell."
0 commit comments