United States of America ex rel. Percy Rutherford v. John T. Deegan
406 F.2d 217 (1969)
Rule of Law:
A pre-trial identification procedure conducted before June 12, 1967, violates the Due Process Clause only if, under the totality of the circumstances, it was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.
Facts:
- On October 29, 1965, two men, one very tall and one shorter, robbed a cleaning establishment in Long Beach, New York, during daylight hours.
- The counter girl, Mrs. Marjorie Donnelly, observed the unmasked robbers for approximately five minutes in the well-lit store.
- Mrs. Donnelly made a deliberate effort to study the taller robber's face so she could identify him later.
- Immediately following the robbery, Mrs. Donnelly gave police a detailed description of the taller robber as being over 6 feet tall, very thin, with dark skin and a heavy beard.
- Over the next ten days, Mrs. Donnelly was shown hundreds of photographs and several other suspects but did not identify anyone.
- On November 9, 1965, police brought Mrs. Donnelly to the station house and told her they had a 'suspect' for her to view.
- Through a one-way window, Mrs. Donnelly saw Rutherford, who was Black, standing in a room with several white detectives.
- Upon seeing Rutherford, Mrs. Donnelly immediately identified him as the taller robber.
Procedural Posture:
- Rutherford was convicted of first-degree robbery by a jury in a New York state trial court.
- Rutherford appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York (the state's highest court), which unanimously affirmed the conviction.
- Rutherford filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of his state conviction.
- The federal district court denied the petition for habeas corpus.
- Rutherford, as the appellant, appealed the district court's denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pre-trial, single-person showup identification procedure, where the suspect is the only Black person shown to the witness in the presence of several white detectives, violate the Due Process Clause when the witness had a significant opportunity to observe the perpetrator during the crime and provided an accurate prior description?
Opinions:
Majority - Medina, Circuit Judge
No, the pre-trial showup did not violate the Due Process Clause. An identification procedure is unconstitutional only if it was so impermissibly suggestive that it created a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, based on the totality of the circumstances. Here, several factors indicated the identification's reliability despite the suggestive nature of the showup. Mrs. Donnelly had an ample opportunity to view the robber in a well-lit store during the crime, she paid close attention in order to remember his face, her initial description to the police was accurate and matched Rutherford, she demonstrated reliability by refusing to identify other suspects, and her identification of Rutherford was immediate and certain. Considering this totality of circumstances, there was no substantial likelihood of misidentification, and thus, no denial of due process.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the Stovall v. Denno due process standard for pre-Wade identification procedures. It establishes that even a highly suggestive procedure, such as a one-person showup, is not a per se violation of due process. The court's focus on the reliability of the identification, based on the witness's original opportunity to observe, sets a precedent for weighing the corrupting effect of a suggestive procedure against indicia of the identification's independent reliability. This 'totality of the circumstances' approach allows courts to admit identifications from suggestive settings if other factors strongly support their accuracy, reinforcing that the ultimate concern is preventing wrongful convictions, not merely policing police methods.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States of America ex rel. Percy Rutherford v. John T. Deegan (1969)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"