De'Andre J. Cothran v. State of Missouri, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 768

Cothran robbed a Family Dollar store in Kansas City on June 28, 2007, threatening the cashier with a gun and taking money.
Cooper (assistant manager) and Harper (store manager) observed the robbery and saw Cothran flee, including taking off his jacket; they later provided descriptions.
After arrest, Cothran lied about his age and identity; police recovered over $200 and a gun near the scene, and matched clothing to him; DNA on the gun trigger matched Cothran.
Cooper and Harper identified Cothran in show-ups and in-store photogenic and live lineup identifications, both initially at the scene and later in court.
Cothran was convicted of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action, and received concurrent sentences of twelve years and three years.
He filed a timely Rule 29.15 motion alleging ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress the identifications; the motion court denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress identifications	Cothran asserts counsel failed to suppress out-of-court and in-court identifications.	State contends the procedures were not unduly suggestive and suppression would fail.	No; suppression would not have been granted, and no prejudice shown.

State v. Hornbuckle, 769 S.W.2d 89 (Mo. banc 1989) (identification reliability governs admissibility when procedure is suggestive)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. Supreme Court 1977) (reliability is the linchpin of identification admissibility)
State v. Vinson, 800 S.W.2d 444 (Mo. banc 1990) (reliability analysis governs admissibility when not unduly suggestive)
State v. Glover, 951 S.W.2d 359 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (show-ups and identifications are not per se unduly suggestive)
State v. Clark, 809 S.W.2d 139 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (police identification procedures embody no undue suggestiveness)
State v. Robinson, 849 S.W.2d 693 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) (show-up identifications can be admissible)
State v. Smith, 465 S.W.2d 482 (Mo. 1971) (case law on reliability and identifications)
State v. Robertson, 262 S.W.3d 285 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (presence at scene and flight support guilt when coupled with other evidence)
State v. Williams, 717 S.W.2d 561 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (show-up identifications can be valid even if the suspect is in handcuffs)
State v. Smith, 11 S.W.3d 733 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (evidence of guilt beyond identification remains)
State v. Robertson, 262 S.W.3d 285 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (DNA on weapon and possession of stolen property support guilt)