United States v. Morgan
248 F. Supp. 3d 208
D.D.C.2017Background
- Defendant Charles Morgan charged in a nine-count indictment including sex-offender registration, kidnapping, transportation of a minor, attempted child-pornography production, and related counts arising from the May 22, 2016 abduction and assault of a 15-year-old (J.T.).
- J.T. reported prolonged, close-contact assaults in Morgan’s car and home; Morgan gave her a business card and later a note with his number and the name “Mr. C.”
- Two days after the incident, police showed J.T. a six-person colored photo array that included a fuzzy photo of Morgan; she was unable to identify anyone from the array.
- At trial Morgan would be the only African-American man seated at counsel table; he moved to preclude any in-court identification by J.T., arguing the prior non-identification rendered any courtroom ID unreliable and unduly suggestive.
- The government sought to elicit an in-court identification; the court considered whether such an initial in-court ID is impermissibly suggestive and, if so, whether it is nonetheless reliable under the totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an initial in-court identification is impermissibly suggestive | Court must exclude only if procedure was impermissibly suggestive; prosecution may ask for ID at trial | In-court ID is impermissibly suggestive because Morgan will be the only African-American man at counsel table (akin to one-man showup) | The court found the in-court ID would be suggestive and unnecessary and therefore triggers reliability review |
| Whether Perry v. New Hampshire forecloses a pretrial reliability inquiry for in-court IDs | Perry limits judicial reliability screening to IDs tainted by improper law enforcement conduct | Morgan argues Perry should apply and bar exclusion absent law-enforcement arranged suggestiveness | Court rejected a blanket Perry bar for initial in-court IDs, treating prosecutor-driven in-court ID as "arranged by law enforcement" when no pretrial identification exists |
| Whether J.T.’s failure to identify Morgan in the photo array makes an in-court ID unreliable | Government: prolonged, close observation and a fuzzy photo in array support reliability of an in-court ID | Morgan: failure to identify soon after the crime undermines any later courtroom ID | Court held J.T.’s extended, close contact with assailant and the poor quality of the photo array meant a confident in-court ID could be reliable and admissible for the jury to assess |
| Whether due process requires exclusion of an in-court identification here | Government: reliability is for the jury when no improper state conduct rendered the ID unreliable | Morgan: in-court ID is tantamount to a suggestive one-person showup and risks misidentification | Court denied the motion to preclude; in-court ID admissible only if court finds the witness’s trial identification sufficiently reliable under Manson factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (reliability factors govern admissibility of eyewitness IDs)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (judicial reliability inquiry required only when identification was tainted by law enforcement)
- United States v. Rattler, 475 F.3d 408 (D.C. Cir.) (two-pronged due-process test for identifications)
- United States v. Archibald, 734 F.2d 938 (2d Cir.) (in-court ID may be obviously suggestive when the defendant’s identity in court is obvious)
- United States v. Emanuele, 51 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir.) (failure to ID in array plus suggestive courtroom circumstances can render in-court ID unreliable)
- United States v. Thomas, 849 F.3d 906 (10th Cir.) (post-Perry decision allowing in-court ID absent law-enforcement arrangement)
- United States v. Whatley, 719 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir.) (in-court ID of sole similarly situated defendant held permissible post-Perry)
- United States v. Lee, 750 F.3d 687 (7th Cir.) (failure to ID in pretrial procedure does not automatically preclude later in-court ID)