United States v. Jarvis Maurice Williams
688 F. App'x 895
11th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Jarvis Williams convicted of carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119) and discharging a firearm during a carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)); he appealed.
- Pretrial, victim Terrence Ball viewed two separate photographic spreads; Williams’ photo appeared in both spreads (different photos) and Ball identified Williams in each, more confidently on the second spread.
- The district court admitted Ball’s out-of-court photographic identifications and his in-court identification at trial; Williams moved to suppress the identifications as impermissibly suggestive.
- Williams argued the repeated inclusion of his photo (the only person present in both spreads) and the two-spread procedure were unduly suggestive and tainted the in-court ID.
- The court applied the Eleventh Circuit’s two-step test: first whether the procedure was unduly suggestive; if so, then whether the identification was nevertheless reliable under the Biggers factors.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding the photo arrays were not impermissibly suggestive and therefore no need to assess reliability under Biggers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pretrial photographic procedure was unduly suggestive | Williams: inclusion of his photo in both spreads (only photo repeated) created a suggestive identification procedure | Government: each spread contained five fillers similar in race/appearance; no suggestive comments or pressure; photos of Williams differed between spreads | Not unduly suggestive — spreads contained similar fillers and Williams’ two photos differed in appearance |
| Whether repeated inclusion of same suspect’s photo automatically renders procedure suggestive | Williams: appearing in both spreads made selection likely based on repetition | Government: repeated inclusion alone is not per se impermissible; other circuits reject automatic suppression | Court rejected automatic-suggestiveness rule; inclusion in two arrays is not per se impermissible |
| Whether second photographic spread tainted later in-court ID | Williams: second spread compounded suggestiveness, so in-court ID was contaminated | Government: because pretrial IDs were not impermissibly suggestive, no taint; second photo more closely matched defendant’s appearance at the time | In-court identification not improperly affected; admission was proper |
| Whether police should have used a live lineup instead of a second photo spread | Williams: live lineup would have been less suggestive | Government: availability of other methods is not relevant to whether the spread itself was suggestive | Rejected — court looks to whether spread itself was suggestive, not to whether other methods were available |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ramirez, 476 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Elliot, 732 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2013) (pretrial ID must be so suggestive as to create very substantial likelihood of misidentification)
- United States v. Diaz, 248 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2001) (two-step test: suggestiveness then reliability)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (reliability factors for identification: opportunity to view, attention, accuracy of description, certainty, time delay)
- United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992) (inclusion in two photo arrays not automatically impermissible)
- United States v. Donaldson, 978 F.2d 381 (7th Cir. 1992) (two arrays with different photos of suspect not unduly suggestive)
- United States v. Maguire, 918 F.2d 254 (1st Cir. 1990) (suspect’s inclusion in two photospreads, even with same photo, not per se unconstitutional)
- United States v. Kimbrough, 481 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1973) (evaluation focuses on the spread itself; availability of other methods not dispositive)