On Point: D. Identification procedure

State v. Brandon B. Smiley, 2022AP1522-CR, District 4, 6/2/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejects Smiley’s claim that the photo array shown to A.B., the complaining witness, was impermissibly suggestive and, therefore, her (not very confident) identification of him after looking at the array should have been suppressed.

State v. Alberto E. Rivera, 2021AP1100, 7/12/22, District 1, (not recommended for publication); case activity, (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejects Rivera’s claims for ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel for failing to raise two claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Rivera challenged trial counsel’s counsel’s failure to seek suppression of an in-court identification because (a) it was tainted by an earlier suggestive “showup” procedure, and (b) his right to counsel was violated during the line-up because his retained counsel was not present for it.

Nelson Garcia, Jr. v. Brian Foster, 20-CV-335 (E.D. Wis. 11/9/21).

Garcia challenged his robbery conviction on two grounds. (1) He was denied his right to counsel at a post-arrest police line up. (2) He was denied his right to go pro se at trial. While habeas wins are rare, what’s most remarkable is how blatantly the Wisconsin Court of Appeals violated SCOTUS precedent on both issues. To top that, SCOW granted review and then split 3-3 allowing the court of appeals decision to stand. Now, at long last, the Eastern District grants Garcia the relief SCOTUS requires.

State v. Steven Tyrone Bratchett, 2020AP1347-Cr, 11/9/21, District 1, (not recommended for publication), case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Bratchett of burglary, armed robbery, and attempted 3rd-degree sexual assault.  Bratchett argued and lost 6 issues on appeal. The court of appeals split over two of them, and they are focus of this post. The majority (Judges White and Donald) held that: (1) the photo array the victim used to identify Bratchett, while impermissibly suggestive, was still reliable, and (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to impeach the victim with her inconsistent statement. Judge Dugan would reverse on these issues and grant a new trial.

State v. K.L.G., 2019AP658, District 1, 6/16/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

What a bummer. K.L.G. moved to suppress an officer’s identification of him made after she looked up his booking photo from a previous incidence. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed. The State appealed, and the court of appeals reverses.

State v. Stephan I. Roberson, 2019 WI 102, 12/3/19, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion, 2017AP1894, case activity (including briefs)

The result here is simple, and expected, given the current makeup of the court: a five-two majority to overturn State v. Dubose, 2005 WI 126, 285 Wis. 2d 143, 699 N.W.2d 582. Dubose held that “show up” identifications–those where the police present a witness with only one suspect–were inherently suggestive, and identifications so obtained would be inadmissible unless circumstances rendered the procedure “necessary.” So, now, Wisconsin courts will review claims that a show-up identification should be excluded under the test of State v. Wolverton, 193 Wis. 2d 234, 264, 533 N.W.2d 167 (1995): a defendant must carry the initial burden to show the procedure was impermissibly suggestive, and if he or she does, the state must then prove that the identification is nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances.

State v. Nelson Garcia, Jr., 2019 WI 40, 4/19/19; case activity (including briefs)

ASPD Pam Moorshead briefed this appeal and argued it to SCOW less than two weeks ago. The lead issue was whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches upon the finding of probable cause and setting of bail by a court commissioner. Justice Abrahamson withdrew from participation leaving only 6 justices to decide the case.

State v. Stephan I. Roberson, 2017AP1894-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 2/12/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from the petition for review):

Whether a pretrial out-of-court identification using a single photo is a showup and thus inadmissible at trial unless the State proves necessity under the totality of the circumstances?

State v. Nelson Garcia, Jr., 2016AP1276-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/12/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review)

1. Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attach upon the finding of probable cause and setting of bail by a court commissioner?
2. Was the line-up impermissibly suggestive because it violated the Department of Justice’s Model Policy and Procedure for Eyewitness Identification and the viewing witnesses failed to follow the standard instructions given to them?
3. Can a trial court at a pre-trial hearing decide that a defendant has waived the right to self-representation because the court believes the defendant will engage in disruptive behavior in front of the jury? If so, does the defendant have a right to redeem himself?

Some states say “no.” The Marshall Project just ran this article on the practice.  For the Connecticut case mentioned in the article, click here.