Com. v. Anderson, R., Com. v. Anderson, R. No. 1236 EDA 2016

Two victims (Cordrey and Meiring) were robbed at gunpoint on Sept. 25, 2011; both gave descriptions to police shortly after the incident.
Detective Rodham prepared an eight-photo array (Appellee pictured as No. 5) after police found victims’ IDs on Appellee; he emailed that array to the victims on Oct. 14, 2011 instead of showing it in person.
The victims viewed the array while together in the same dorm/common area, returned identifications by fax/email, and later gave in-court identifications; their recollections of how the array was viewed were uncertain and inconsistent.
The suppression court suppressed the out-of-court (photo array) identifications as unduly suggestive given how the array was presented and the witnesses’ uncertain testimony, but allowed in-court identifications.
The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the procedure was unusual but not impermissibly suggestive and that each witness viewed independently.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Anderson's Argument	Held
Whether the out-of-court photo-array IDs should be suppressed as unduly suggestive	Procedure was merely unusual; array itself was non-suggestive and victims viewed independently	Unmonitored, emailed presentation and possible joint viewing created substantial likelihood of misidentification	Affirmed suppression of out-of-court IDs: manner of presentation + witness uncertainty created substantial likelihood of misidentification
Whether lack of detective presence renders a non-suggestive array admissible	Lack of presence did not make an otherwise fair array suggestive	Detective absence in conjunction with shared viewing increases risk and undercuts reliability	Court held detective absence plus other factors supported suppression
Whether victims’ equivocal testimony undercuts suppression	Victims testified they followed instructions and viewed independently, supporting admissibility	Victims’ fuzzy, inconsistent recollections failed to dispel risk of collaboration or influence	Court credited that testimony was not sufficiently reliable to negate risk, supporting suppression
Whether pretrial suppression prevents all identification evidence (including in-court)	Commonwealth argued suppression of out-of-court IDs unnecessary to bar reliable in-court IDs	Trial court had already preserved in-court IDs; suppression limited to out-of-court IDs	Suppression limited to out-of-court identifications; in-court IDs were not suppressed by suppression court

Commonwealth v. Miller, 56 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression appeals)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2010) (appellate review: factual findings binding, legal conclusions de novo)
Commonwealth v. Korn, 139 A.3d 249 (Pa. Super. 2016) (suggestiveness in identification process is a relevant factor)
Commonwealth v. Bruce, 717 A.2d 1033 (Pa. Super. 1998) (pretrial identification suppressed only when substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification exists)
Commonwealth v. Kubis, 978 A.2d 391 (Pa. Super. 2009) (process suggestiveness, not just array content, is relevant)
Commonwealth v. Edwards, 762 A.2d 382 (Pa. Super. 2000) (apply totality of circumstances / Biggers factors)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for evaluating reliability of identifications)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (confirming totality-of-circumstances test and factors)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 439 A.2d 195 (Pa. Super. 1981) (opportunity to view is most important Biggers factor)
Commonwealth v. Derrick, 469 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Super. 1983) (enumerating Biggers factors)