United States v. Baker
2011 CAAF LEXIS 698
| C.A.A.F. | 2011Background
- Specialist Baker was charged with indecent exposure and assault under the UCMJ.
- The military judge suppressed a pretrial photo identification and the victim’s in-court identification.
- Government sought relief under Article 62 UCMJ; Army Court vacated the suppression order.
- Appellate courts applied Rhodes/Biggers two-part test for eyewitness identifications.
- Army Court held the military judge abused discretion by suppressing identifications and adopted its own findings.
- Appellate court reviewed de novo the Biggers factors and uphold suppression outcome only if appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the pretrial identification unnecessarily suggestive? | Baker argues show-up is inherently suggestive. | Govenrment contends it was not unnecessarily suggestive given timing and matching description. | Yes, the show-up was unnecessarily suggestive. |
| Was the identification reliable under Biggers totality of circumstances? | Baker contends reliability was not shown. | Govenment argues factors show reliability. | Yes, identification was reliable under Biggers factors. |
| Did Army Court err in adopting findings and in easing suppression? | Baker challenges Army Court’s reliance on factual findings. | Government argues those findings were material and correct. | Army Court erred; military judge’s suppression of identifications should stand. |
| Was in-court identification properly suppressed under M.R.E. 321(d)(2)? | Identification tainted by suggestive pretrial photo. | Prosecution could prove later identification not result of inadmissible ID. | Yes, suppression not clearly erroneous; in-court ID suppressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (two-step test for reliability of identifications under totality of circumstances)
- Rhodes, 42 M.J. 287 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (adopts two-part test for suggestive identifications in military context)
- Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability is the linchpin in admissibility of identification evidence)
- Ayala, 43 M.J. 296 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (standard for reviewing military suppression rulings; mixed questions of law and fact)
- Downing, 56 M.J. 419 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (standard for evaluating eyewitness identification reliability on appeal)