United States v. Jones
689 F.3d 12
1st Cir.2012Background
- Investigation of drug activity in Brockton, MA began spring 2008 involving federal, state, and local agents.
- Undercover Massachusetts State Trooper Patterson bought two $40 crack bags from a man at 249 Green Street after approaching Patterson’s truck.
- A Dodge vehicle circulated; Patterson suspected the driver or others could be police or robbers, affecting his safety.
- Two unidentified men approached Patterson’s vehicle; first asked what he wanted, then left to confer with the group before the second man delivered the drugs.
- Patterson identified Jones and Richmond from booking photos after the transaction; Telford and Patterson corroborated the identifications, and trial proceeded on charges including conspiracy and distribution near a school.
- Jones moved to suppress Patterson’s out-of-court identification and to exclude an expert witness, Dr. Penrod, while Richmond pled guilty; district court denied suppression and granted limited expert testimony under judge’s instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patterson’s identification of Jones was properly admissible | Jones argues identification was unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable | Government contends identification was reliable under totality of circumstances | Identification admissible; not suppressed under Manson/Rivera guidance |
| Whether the Penrod expert testimony should have been admitted | Jones contends expert testimony is necessary to evaluate eyewitness issues | Government argues jury instructions suffice to convey general concerns | District court acted within its discretion; expert testimony could be replaced by instructions |
| Whether the recorded jail telephone excerpt was admissible | Jones argues it was prejudicial and not a proper admission | Government asserts relevance and probative value outweigh prejudice under Rule 403 | Admissible; probative value outweighs prejudice; within trial court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (Sup. Ct. 1977) (identification reliability factors and totality of circumstances)
- Rivera-Rivera, 555 F.3d 277 (1st Cir. 2009) (reliability of eyewitness identifications under totality of circumstances)
- de Jesus-Rios, 990 F.2d 672 (1st Cir. 1993) (identify reliability standard and need for caution with identifications)
- Brien, 59 F.3d 274 (1st Cir. 1995) (expert testimony in eyewitness identification cases; costs and cautions of experts)
- Shay, 57 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 1995) (limits on expert testimony; identification issues)
- Pires, 642 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (constitutional defense rights vs. evidentiary rules; limits on admissibility)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (allowance of cross-examination and reliability testing of eyewitness identifications)
- Bayard, 642 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2011) (trial-judge discretion in shaping identification instruction language)