Commonwealth v. Thomas
476 Mass. 451
Mass.2017Background
- On Sept. 21, 2014, Brianna Johnson (front-seat passenger) witnessed shots fired from the rear passenger side of a vehicle; she knew the defendant Marcus Thomas by name and had seen him before.
- That night detectives showed Johnson an 11-photo simultaneous array (without Silva‑Santiago warnings); she picked Thomas and signed the photo.
- Thomas was later arrested; a 9mm handgun was recovered near where he was apprehended. Four days after the shooting, detectives showed Johnson a single photograph of the recovered gun; after suggestive questioning and confirmatory remarks she agreed it was the gun and signed the photo.
- Defendant moved to suppress (1) Johnson’s identification of him and (2) her identification of the firearm. The judge denied suppression of the person ID but suppressed the firearm ID. Both sides sought interlocutory review; the SJC granted direct review.
- The court took the record (video interviews and stipulations) as the basis for findings and addressed three main legal questions about eyewitness identification procedure and admissibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consequence of failing to follow Silva‑Santiago protocol when showing a photo array | Failure to follow protocol does not mandate exclusion; at most affects weight and jury instruction | Failure to follow protocol made the photo identification unduly suggestive and should be suppressed | Court: Failure to follow protocol can affect admissibility and will affect jury instructions; here, given witness familiarity, omission alone did not require suppression (identification admissible) |
| Use of simultaneous (vs. sequential) photo array | Simultaneous display does not render identification per se inadmissible; choice affects weight only | Simultaneous array is more suggestive and should lead to suppression | Court: No clear scientific consensus to declare simultaneous arrays per se unnecessarily suggestive; choice goes to weight, not admissibility |
| Identification of an inanimate object (firearm) after single-photo showup | The firearm ID was acceptable; lineup of similar objects not required | Single-photo showup and suggestive questioning rendered the firearm ID unreliable and prejudicial; suppress | Court: Identification of inanimate objects can raise due process concerns; here the single-photo plus confirmatory questioning rendered the firearm ID inadmissible (suppressed) |
| Role of police confirmation and witness confidence inflation | Police confirmation was acceptable corroboration | Detectives’ leading and confirmatory remarks inflated confidence and made the ID unfairly prejudicial under evidentiary rules | Court: Judge did not abuse discretion in excluding firearm ID under common‑law evidentiary balancing; police confirmation undermined reliability |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Silva‑Santiago, 453 Mass. 782 (protocol expectation for photo arrays)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 460 Mass. 590 (failure to follow protocol increases misidentification risk; simultaneous vs sequential discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Odware, 429 Mass. 231 (due process suppression standard for unduly suggestive identifications)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 383 Mass. 46 (extreme suggestiveness in identification of inanimate objects; evidentiary concerns)
- Commonwealth v. Gomes, 470 Mass. 352 (use of scientific consensus in crafting jury instructions on eyewitness ID)