United States v. Harris, 636 F.3d 1023

Harris, a felon, was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition in interstate commerce.
Photographic lineup was created from photos of Harris and five similar-looking men; Harris’s photo had a slightly blue hue.
Three witnesses identified Harris from the lineup on the day of the shooting; a hospitalized juvenile victim (A.L.) also identified him.
Defense moved to suppress the eyewitness identifications; magistrate judge recommended denial; district court adopted.
At trial, Holt and A.L. identified Harris; Madison testified Harris possessed and used the handgun during the shootings; Harris was sentenced to 120 months.
The district court denied suppression and Harris appealed on both the identification and sufficiency grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the photographic lineup impermissibly suggestive?	Harris argues lineup content was suggestive.	Government contends slight color variations do not render lineup impermissibly suggestive.	Lineup not impermissibly suggestive.
Is the verdict supported by substantial evidence?	Evidence from eyewitness identifications and Madison’s testimony insufficient.	Eyewitness testimony and Madison’s testimony suffice to prove elements.	Verdict supported by more than sufficient evidence.

United States v. Rose, 362 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2004) (six-photo lineup not impermissibly suggestive)
United States v. Tucker, 169 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 1999) (test for suggestive identification from pretrial lineup)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (standard for determining reliability of eyewitness identifications)
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (due process standard for pretrial identification)
Armstrong v. Gammon, 195 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 1999) (impermissible suggestiveness required before due process review)
Zammar v. United States, 217 F.2d 223 (8th Cir. 1954) (identification issues and jury questions governed by jury)