United States v. Melvin Telfaire
152 U.S. App. D.C. 146, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8925, 469 F.2d 552 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When eyewitness identification is a central issue in a criminal case, the trial court should, as a matter of routine, give a special jury instruction detailing the factors to be considered in evaluating the reliability of the identification testimony.
Facts:
- Mr. Peregory entered a hotel looking for a friend.
- A man and a woman approached Peregory, claimed to know his friend, and led him to the third floor.
- On the third floor, they were joined by a third person, later identified as Melvin Telfaire.
- The robbery took place in a poorly lit area on the third floor.
- Telfaire first asked Peregory for a dollar, which he gave him.
- Telfaire then demanded more money, searched Peregory's pockets, and took a ten-dollar bill.
- Approximately thirty minutes after the robbery, Peregory returned to the hotel with police officers.
- Upon entering the hotel lobby, Peregory immediately and spontaneously identified Telfaire as the person who had robbed him.
Procedural Posture:
- Melvin Telfaire was prosecuted for robbery in the trial court for the District of Columbia.
- A jury found Telfaire guilty.
- The trial court sentenced Telfaire under the Youth Corrections Act.
- Telfaire, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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 trial court's failure to give a special, unrequested jury instruction on eyewitness identification constitute reversible error where other instructions and the context of the trial adequately focused the jury's attention on the issue of identity?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the failure to give a special identification instruction does not constitute reversible error in this specific case. While such an instruction is critically important and should be given as a matter of routine, the error here was harmless because the trial's overall context, including the alibi defense and general instructions on the burden of proof, sufficiently focused the jury's attention on the issue of identification. The court affirmed the conviction but used its supervisory power to promulgate a model jury instruction on identification for future use, warning that failure to use a similar instruction going forward would constitute a significant risk of reversal.
Concurring - Bazelon, C.J.
Yes, I concur that the error was harmless in this case and support promulgating a model instruction. However, the proposed model instruction is insufficient because it fails to address the well-documented difficulty of cross-racial identification. An instruction should be included that allows the jury to consider whether the inter-racial nature of an identification affects its reliability, as this is a highly relevant factor that is not based on prejudice but on cognitive realities.
Concurring - Leventhal, J.
Yes, I concur in the judgment and the model instruction. However, the issue of including a specific instruction on cross-racial identification is not ripe for inclusion in a model instruction. The data on the subject is meager and potentially conflicting, and introducing this sensitive topic without a well-established legal and scientific foundation could be divisive and lead to complex, prejudicial inquiries during trials. This topic is better explored through judicial committees and further study rather than an appellate ruling in an adversarial context.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its exercise of appellate supervisory power to proactively shape trial procedure. By creating the 'Telfaire instruction,' the court established a new standard for how trial judges should handle cases relying heavily on eyewitness testimony, recognizing the inherent dangers of misidentification highlighted by the Supreme Court. While the holding did not reverse the conviction, its primary impact was forward-looking, effectively mandating more specific jury guidance on identification and signaling that appellate courts would scrutinize this issue more closely in the future. The concurring opinions also brought the complex issue of cross-racial identification into judicial discourse, paving the way for future legal developments in that area.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Melvin Telfaire