Kirkland v. State, 310 Ga. 738

On December 30, 2013, two men (Johnathon Kirkland and his brother Brandon) approached a nightclub and shot multiple people; Amin Bouchelaghem was killed. Brandon was later acquitted; Johnathon was convicted of malice murder and related offenses.
Multiple eyewitnesses connected Kirkland to the shootings; several witnesses identified him in photo lineups and one witness reported a pretrial admission by Kirkland.
Victim/witness Michael McGee, Jr. viewed three six-photo lineups on January 10, 2014, while on heavy medication and made no identification.
McGee, Jr. returned on January 16, 2014; Detective Thorpe presented the same three lineups (photos reordered) and McGee, Jr. identified Kirkland with "100 percent certainty."
Kirkland moved to suppress McGee, Jr.’s out-of-court identification, arguing the photo-lineup was unduly suggestive because (1) the detective knew the suspect, (2) the same photo was shown twice, and (3) a neighborhood friend had previously shown McGee, Jr. a photo of Kirkland.
The trial court denied suppression; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, holding the procedure was not impermissibly suggestive and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McGee, Jr.’s photo-lineup identification should be suppressed as unduly suggestive	Kirkland: procedure was suggestive because detective knew the suspect; same photo shown twice; friend previously showed witness a photo	State: lineup complied in substance with lawful practice; no conduct equivalent to telling witness “This is our suspect”; repeat showing and prior non-police viewing do not make the procedure unduly suggestive	Court affirmed denial of suppression: no abuse of discretion; identification procedure not impermissibly suggestive, so no need to reach substantial-likelihood-of-misidentification inquiry

Westbrook v. State, 308 Ga. 92 (2020) (articulates standards for impermissibly suggestive identifications and two-step review)
Bowen v. State, 299 Ga. 875 (2016) (describes two-step process for evaluating out-of-court identifications)
Curry v. State, 305 Ga. 73 (2019) (distinguishes non-law-enforcement pretrial viewings from suggestive police procedures)
Clark v. State, 279 Ga. 243 (2005) (finding no impermissible suggestiveness where defendant’s photo appeared in two lineups)
Roseboro v. State, 308 Ga. 428 (2020) (failure to follow photo-lineup statute does not mandate exclusion of identification evidence)