United States v. MacIo Singleton

genuine attempt to ascertain showing of requires, simply not the law faith. bad absence demonstration Airlines, Inc., 740 Northwest Laffey See (D.C.Cir.1984),cert. denied 1071, 1096

— U.S.-, Admi therein. cited cases' (1985), and wage approach to its records ral's cavalier magis indicate alone suffices discretion in re abuse his trate did good acted in fusing that Admiral to find grounds to be reasonable faith and with practices compensation lieve its overtime sign good hardly It is were lawful. employer prepares one set of faith that an for purposes another books his own for Magistrate’s “downtown.” the authorities impressed by 42. Nor are we Decision at plea that its records were Admiral’s absurdly “unbelievably and some so cases inaccurate,” Appellants Brief for motive to demonstrate absence up to cover violations of law. Carelessness management the kind in which Admiral's indulged surely compel exonera liquidated damages liability.

tion from (1) judgment For the reasons stated: affirmed; judg- Jewell ments Dove and Pinner are vacated and for the redeter-

their claims remanded damages mination of due to them. It is so ordered. America,

UNITED STATES Appellant, Macio SINGLETON.

No. 83-2173. Appeals, United States Court Circuit. District Columbia Argued March 1984. April Decided 25,1985. June Denied Banc Rehearing En

BORK, Judge. Circuit before this court for the previous second Our time. decision re- judgment a acquittal versed entered a jury after verdict of guilty Singleton. panel Macio majority held that the presented was reliable and sufficient to sustain the Upon conviction. remand the district court trial, granted then, a new upon Single- motion, suppressed ton’s key we now address is whether operated our prevent district court from suppressing evidence had held reliable. We hold that our previous decision binding upon the dis- trict court and we suppression reverse the order.

I.

The case robbery arises out of a aof fast restaurant, rapid apprehension food appellee Singleton, and an showup onsite identification, all evening Septem- complete ber 1975. A factual account of surrounding these occurrences and the cir- cumstances is contained in United States v. Singleton, (D.C.Cir.1983) 702 F.2d 1159 /”). (“Singleton We need not repeat the Moore, D.C., Craig Washington, N. details here. After a positive identifica- Supreme Cal., Bar pro Court of tion, Singleton charged with four Court, by special vice hac leave with robbery, counts of armed 22 D.C.Code Ann. diGenova, Joseph Atty., whom E. Mi- §§ 2901, one posses- count of Farrell, Hetherton, chael W. Judith Theo- unregistered firearm, of an sion 26 U.S.C. A. Stanley, dore Shmanda and David W. § 5861(d) (1976); and posses- one count of D.C., Attys., Washington, Asst. U.S. were serial, sion a firearm not identified a brief, appellant. on for § number, 5861(i)(1976). 26 U.S.C. Wilhite, D.C., Washington, appel- Ed for bond, appellee Released ap- failed lee. pear arraignment and bench warrant fugitive was issued. remained a SCALIA, Before BORK Circuit and one-half until his arrest SWYGERT,* Judges, and Senior Circuit charge an arson February, unrelated Judge. trial, appellee Prior filed a motion suppress showup identifications on Opinion Judge for the Court Circuit ground they product BORK. unduly suggestive procedures and that opinion Dissenting filed Senior deprive Circuit their admission would him of due Judge process. SWYGERT.

* Appeals 294(d) (1982). Of United States Court for the U.S.C. § Circuit, designation sitting by pursuant Seventh requires the case and therefore reversal

The district court held motion, granting appel the district court’s order hearing appellee’s find- and denied suppress identi lee’s motion to procedure was not testimony. The of “law of fication doctrine trial, After full overly suggestive. practice whereby rule of the case” appellee guilty on all counts. jury found generally reopen “courts refuse to trial, made At the end of An Messenger has been decided.” v. judg- for and a motion motion for new trial 436, 444, 739, 740, derson, 225 S.Ct. granted judge The trial acquittal. of ment 56 L.Ed. 1152 See also In re Multi- acquittal judgment of appellee’s for motion Litigation, Liability Piece Rim Products ground the was insuf- the that evidence on (D.C.Cir.1981). F.2d White guilt beyond finding support ficient (5th Cir.1967), Murtha, F.2d 428 the specifically He did so a reasonable doubt. that, court stated showup grounds that the onsite was on the case” rule “law of the is based [t]he suggestive that recollections of too and the public salutary policy sound that the and years trial more than five the witnesses at litigation come to an end. should appel- photograph later conflicted with predicated premise the it that The did lee taken after his arrest. for impossible would be an trial, presum- for not act on the motion new perform satisfactorily court “to its duties mooted ably considering the efficiently” expeditiously “if a and and grant other motion. of the question, decided once considered and fif- appeal, On reviewed litigated it were to in the same anew case, transcript of the held teen-volume upon every subsequent ap- any and grounds the district court’s that neither of peal” thereof. sustainable, the evidence found that were (footnotes omitted). The doc Id. at support jury’s find- was sufficient precludes questions also “decided trine On ings, and remanded. re- and reversed necessary implication as well those de mand, however, granted explicitly.” Terrell cided v. Household motion a new trial. appellee’s pending Bureau, 16, 19 Goods Carriers’ sup- renewed his motion to then Cir.), dismissed, (5th press showup testimony 42 L.Ed.2d see also time, upon granted this it judge, and Inc., League, Bouchet National Urban ground that its introduction de- (D.C.Cir.1984). prive appellee of due of law. The strong similarity be- There an obvious order, suppression previous judg- like his appeal Singleton present I and the tween upon acquittal, ment of was based II”). The of the (“Singleton judge’s finding that was showup was to the first evidence central suggestiveness of the unreliable because being and is the sole issue considered now. discrepan- showup and because of the re- But the cases are not identical all appellee photograph cies between urges points of spects three his shortly after arrest and wit- taken appeal prevent the first difference that recollection, conflicting more nesses’ than appeal: (1) controlling Singleton from this later, clothing appellee’s deciding explicitly that it stated was not night. appearance that The district us; issue that is before now finding part proposition based this (2) of the review forget are never “people that who robbed I in- Singleton for conviction (“J.A.”) Appendix it.” Joint showup than cluded more evidence appeal by government followed. here; suppressed identifications that were differ- are standards review II. Supplemental in the cases. ent two See these argues Appellee. that this Brief for We address government The in turn. Singleton points is the law opinion court’s hand, A. considering testimony. Appellee ar- panel majority Singleton stated gues, therefore, in theory reviewing the district least, could have held that the evidence suppress refusal the evidence of was sufficient if even there had been no showup identifications to trial and evidence of identifications. process issue “not proper- said the due Thus, that case’s determination that ly before at this us time.” evidence was sufficient does not necessar- F.2d at 1166 n. 23. That was undoubtedly ily determine that the identifications were question, however, correct. is whether reliable. That contention would have more 7’s disavowal intention to force if I had viewed evi- upon precludes rule the due issue dence and simply as whole concluded rulings made governing there was to convict. appeal entirely upon which turns this But that is not Singleton what I did. The issue. We think not. The panel majority there analyzed separately panel Singleton I did not focus on the due reliability of the same evidence the question up since that was not district court has now suppressed ordered and, being review careful not to foreclose a showup the second trial. The identifica- considered, legal not issue noted that fact. subjected tions were to analysis that inde- praise- That is more no than routine and pendently of the other evidence. Id. worthy judicial way caution. In no does because, necessary 1165-66. That was prevent us concluding that caveat panel majority recognized, the identifi- that, truth, analysis Singleton I testimony keystone cation was “the of the process question. does the due answer against appellee.” Government’s case Id. extraordinary, fact, we, upon if would question us, therefore, at 1164. The before finding Singleton analysis that 7’s of the is already identical to one decided in Sin- reliability showup evidence had ef- gleton easily I. That is shown. fectively every decided element the due In Part C of Singleton opinion, issue, should nevertheless consider length court dealt at with the concerns of free reach different the trial reliability about the of the reliability conclusion about the of the evi- showup identification. The of re- dissenting dence. judge in Sin- liability upon turned two considerations: gleton majority’s concluded that the anal- suggestiveness showup of the and the ysis was “identical” to that used in due inconsistencies in the witness’ recollections process cases and tended to foreclose any years five and some one-half later. This II.C, claim here. See Part aspects: court dealt with both clear, therefore, It seems that the infra. suggestiveness We do not believe ... question for us is the of Single- substance which, factor was a considered with analysis, legal ton 7’s not the ultimate conflicting witnesses, testimony of the question which it was addressed. justified necessitated or a verdict ac- quittal. showup Immediate on-the-scene B. identifications, recognized while as inher- More by evidence was considered this- ently suggestive, long upheld have been Singleton holding court I in the evidence by this court. “Balancing all the doubts sufficient than convict is involved in left the mysteries percep- of human reviewing order here. and recognition, appears tion that example, considered not prompt any- confrontations will ‘if only police but identifications promote thing by assuring fairness relia- ____’” testimony one that of the robbers was seen bility Notwithstanding sug- its fleeing spot elements, gestive toward where at issue stopped police. place here took under circumstances 1163-64, We, F.2d at promote reliability. on the other tend to review, is

n. 24 One a de novo is, of review. That deferential incongruence do we find fatal Nor course, legal of the a correct statement testimony There of the witnesses. of review formulations of the standards sure, variations, between the are to be by the dis- determinations where factual as to the witnesses recollections is not are But that trict attacked. clothing appearance facial robber’s Appellant here. is able involved as shown Singleton’s appearance are apparent anomaly we produce an night of his taken photograph —that clearly uphold not erroneous to be ex- discrepancies are Such arrest. that the the district court’s determination however, especially the wit- since pected, hap- despite the decision recalling an evidence is unreliable event nesses were earlier____ of this court that it is pened [T]he over reliable— arguments to given confining his standards to the weight to be ignoring deter- review and the effect is for witnesses upon the dis- the law-of-the-case doctrine mine. trict court. (footnotes I, 702 F.2d at 1165-66 omitted). omitted; citations appellant’s conundrum answer findings by reviewing fact thus It is clear whether, asking the district court. areWe the issue of decided law, court had as a matter of the district independently of the showup identifications differently the facts discretion view more evi The fact that evidence. not. already than we had done. We think Singleton in I than considered dence was by Singleton court The district was bound therefore, not, pre here does we consider showup identifi F s determination that the law of of the doctrine of application vent That is true because cations were reliable. the case. legal applied by Singleton I was test applied by the C. as that the same to be deciding in district court Singleton contends extraordinary motion. The movant had binding in II because cannot be showing burden of evidence in the the standard review is different placed too unreliable even to be before Appel Supplemental Brief for two cases. moving upon jury. Placing the burden case, says, at he we lee 10-11. no defendant to show that rational in required view viewing could convict is the same government in light to the most favorable light to the evidence in the most favorable suf determining whether the evidence was If government.1 the movant Here, support by conviction. ficient to burden, weight carry severe contrast, may court we reverse district entitled is a matter which the evidence is only can that its determina if we conclude probing argument counsel clearly E.g., United tion was erroneous. jury, Wellins, 550, for ultimate determination F.2d & 12 654 557 States body capacities of discernment (9th Cir.1981); Wright, Feder whose see 3 C. also § 678, underrat- 805 matters of this sort must & al Practice and Procedure suggests most The dissent’s further observation that that the test of "reliabili- 1. The dissent admissibility ty" meanings probative operate when is has different rules of evidence exclude sufficiency is before trial and con- considered evidence is beside the mark. The trial. We know of no decision to sidered after precisely a about is determination Nor is that effect and the dissent cites none. probative the sense the evidence is whether When in reason. distinction well founded jur- trustworthy lay before is is he asks asks whether evidence already made has been ors. That determination person could believe the whether reasonable I. ought The be the same answer legal is or due whether the process. context

181 Brathwaite, ed. 432 probable See, See Manson v. U.S. warrant and without cause. 98, 2243, 2254, 116, 97 S.Ct. 53 L.Ed.2d 140 e.g., v. Finefrock, United States 668 F.2d (10th Cir.1982). legal 1168 test there wholly is different. As Chimel v. Califor- identity of the issue before nia, 762, 752, 2034, 2039, 395 U.S. 89 S.Ct. I court and the issue before (1969), clear, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 made when a recognized by the district court was search or seizure is warrantless dissenting judge in Singleton I: government justify- carries the burden of that it states declines to agent’s general actions. The rule Maj. op. address issue. that warrant is and the bur- However, adopts at 1166 n. 23. the court den showing probable for a war- .cause analysis showup testimony an placed rantless search upon govern- identical to that used in due ment because one seeking exemption an cases, 21, e.g., see id. 1165-66 & n. from the rule must show a need it. upon and all the cases relied Chimel, 762, 395 U.S. at 89 S.Ct. at 2039. analysis court its are due Here, by contrast, government cases, see (citing id. at 1165-66 Rus seeking no exemption and there was no States, 1280,1284 sell v. United general rule the evidence it of- (D.C.Cir.) denied, 928, cert. 395 U.S. 89 fered. 1786, (1969); S.Ct. Wise v. cases 702 F.2d at 1174 n. 18 ing). vict. ny suffice When such an leaves In court will have to face the issue ri ty’s analysis process unreliable reasonable Singleton raising the process grounds? a dence be substantial L.Ed.2d op. S.Ct. Cir.1967), United reasonable Nonetheless, my opinion, violated the identification át 1166 n. 21 enunciating U.S. U.S. (1967)). Moreover, case open subsequent appeal by claim. States, 188, 199, allow a as to is to jury due jury tends L.Ed.2d 1164 admission of such testimo- Otherwise, process, denied, 383 to convict and appeal be inadmissible on due the be (citing reasonable to (Wright, to standard distinguished convict, Stovall due sufficient testimony S.Ct. foreclose a due so that a fortio- Neil v. because it finds how could evi brought, (1968)); 375, 382, the J., to allow a 208 yet Biggers, directly. L.Ed.2d dissent- Denno, majori clearly cannot issue. be so ering allow to (D.C. maj. con- Mr. the ap- 88 by Id. at in Biggers enumerates five factors to assist the court tors I, 702 F.2d at the factors considered. The Singleton I L.Ed.2d 401 district court the ^{[3] [2] [5] [4] [1]} Not making evaluate the sufficiency, 188, 199-200, enumerated the witness’ the and the by the witness at the view the criminal at the time of the description crime, the 199-200, have due to length level accuracy opportunity “totality its determination: were the determine noted, confrontation. 93 S.Ct. at 382-383. and, of time between the crime 93 S.Ct. at reliability, the degree same, (a certainty explicitly of the circumstances.” the legal Neil v. & n. subsequently, by the analysis evidence. Singleton the witness’ criminal, so also were the issues considered the witness 21. Under the 375, 382-83, and therefore attention, confrontation, 382. demonstrated used the fac- Biggers, the court is analysis), Biggers consid- court, prior to plied upon suppress I, a motion to applied this court test, grounds that it was Biggers specifically finding seized without a four of skeptical trial. I’m as about it as I suggested present, now factors get totality in of the cir- when was reluctant it in.

concluding that was anything, And if I’m more certain than conducted cumstances the was reliability. Single- that it the earmarks of im- ever had all promoted manner that very and had permissible suggestion, The court found F.2d at 1166. ton potential ample op- dangerous for misidentification. “had that each of the witnesses [culprits] at close portunity to view grant I’m going to motion. So lighting conditions” range good 142-43. The district also J.A. at court period minutes. Id. at 1164-66 of several found that recollection witness- atten- degree of & 22. The witnesses’ es, than more five and one-half after varied, each had focused direct tion but incident, pho- consistent with was not face or his cloth- on the robber’s attention shortly tograph taken after his ing. The witnesses testified Id. words, Id. at In other arrest. 129-45. Single- they positive showup that court identical district used the rationale 1164. ton the robber. Id. at grant suppress the motion to the identifica- significant, perhaps most tion it did in the trial to minutes after was conducted within a few grant acquittal. the motion of Indeed Sin- robbery. at 1166. Factor three Id. gleton, suppress, argued on the motion to police or only one not shown was the that lead reasoning “that the same [sic] only this fac- prosecution. Absence of grant judg- his motion for Trial Court tor, as to given the court’s conclusions acquittal, required that he ment of reverse factors, is not to invalidate suppress himself on motion to identifi- showup. v. the entire See United States cation.” Brief at 6. But that Hammond, (9th Cir.1982) reasoning precisely (failure give prior not fatal rejected I. factors); Bass Biggers under see also applying When the law-of-the- (S.D.N.Y.1983). F.Supp. Scully, doctrine, general rule is that analysis I a Thus subsequent appeal the evidence on a where was used to determine the substantially as that the same on the recognized The court the evidence. matters, all preceding appeal, ques first or said, “[a]lthough Biggers when it [was tions, adjudicated points, or issues ], think the factors a] case[ prior appeal are law of the all case on Biggers enumerated in relevant eval- appeals subsequent and should not be re uating weight of identification evidence readjudicated considered or therein. See admissibility.” well as its at Quern Jordan, 347 n. 1166 n. 1139, 18, 1148 n. 59 L.Ed.2d 358 judge, subsequent The district his 444, (1979); Messenger, 225 U.S. at 32 S.Ct. grant suppress, of the motion to based his 740; Industries, Inc., Schwartz v. NMS alleged unreliability of 553, (5th Cir.1978); at 554-55 produced at the initial trial. The White, 431-32; Wright, 377 F.2d at 18 C. following reference district shows Cooper, E. A. Miller & Federal Practice as that rationale was the same be- § Moore, IB J. and Procedure acquittal grant of a motion of hind its (2d Practice ed. Moore’s Federal 110.404[1] previous lack of sufficient evidence at 1984). reliability already Since has been trial: court, by the I found law-of-the- My problem principles precluded

THE is in COURT: ... case suspect reconsidering I a ruling on this motion—and that evidence second can, introduced if the district court could because was time.2 (S.D.N.Y.1966). suggestion, F.Supp. Contrary appellee's this There the trial present judge not bound deci- found that he was a same Dovico, presented in United sion rendered in a trial evidence was States issue, reliability process requires redetermine the it would Due that a suggestive pursuant required to do so to the Big- be out-of-court identification be excluded from same test used gers test—the the Sin- very evidence if there “a substantial merely would gleton I court. This substi- irreparable likelihood of misidentification.” opinion tute the of the district court for 188, Biggers, Neil v. 409 U.S. 93 S.Ct. appeals. that of the court of This is exact- 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (quoting ly principles what law-of-the-case were de- States, Simmons United 390 U.S. veloped avoid. 967, 971, 88 S.Ct. 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968)). hand, On the very carefully was con- sufficient convict, identification, sidered. The record was painstakingly ex- combination evidence, There a majority amined. careful with other only permit need opinion a strong Only dissent. guilt set- rational trier of fact to find beyond injustice tled that a conviction manifest reasonable doubt. See Virgin- Jackson v. justify ia, otherwise occur would us in 307, 319, 2781, 2789, departing from the doctrine of law of the The latter determi- study case. A careful of Singleton nation, which was in Singleton I, reached reasoning, district court’s and the briefs requires a lesser threshold of reliability produce now before us in II no than determining In former. sufficien- such go litigat- conviction. We cannot cy, the court considers evidence in addition adjudicating reliability of this identification; to the accordingly, deficien- same evidence forever. reliability cies in the of identification can be outweighed by reliability of other evi- The decision of the district court is re- determination, dence. An admissibility versed and the case is pro- remanded for contrast, requires exclusive focus on the ceedings consistent with I and reliability of the identification. opinion. this stresses, however, is so ordered. that the identification virtually evi- SWYGERT, Judge, Senior Circuit dis- produced Singleton. dence Even senting. circumstances, such the standard for weighing reliability is stricter when deter- The majority’s application law-of- mining admissibility. In weighing the suf- premised the-case doctrine is on an invalid evidence, ficiency judge decides assumption: in considering the “relia- the jury rationally whether could find the bility” show-up identification in identification to convict. Singleton, United States v. In weighing admissibility evidence, (D.C.Cir.1983) I”), (“Singleton judge independent makes his necessarily passed own de- judgment on the same termination of factors whether the identification is “reliability,” that determine the context, In hence reliable. the former admissibility, identification possibility considers the process purposes. that his views Because own greater degree reliability wrong could —that rationally admissibility, opposed disagree determine the with him and find the sufficiency, evidence, identification reliable to convict. context, would reach the merits of admissibility the latter considers issue. reliability: his own on views whether appeal, Dovico,

admissible. On the circuit court held Unlike our case involves a district judge ruling question previously that the decision the on a deter- whether evidence was ad by appellate Although judge mined the the court. missible was for the trial the at new trial may district court be free redecide issues (2d Cir.), to to 380 F.2d make. 326 n. 1 level, reopenable at the trial court it is not free denied, U.S. 88 S.Ct. 19 L.Ed.2d previously to redecide issues determined the (1967). Akers, See also United States v. if, here, Especially court. no new (D.C.Cir.1983). 1148 & n. 8 presented judge. evidence is to the trial very independent judgment judge of the of there is “a likelihood the at substantial using admissibility stage, the instead the irreparable Biggers, of misidentification.” stages all at deferential Jackson standard at 93 S.Ct. 381. Because U.S. pro the test proceedings, Biggers of reliability level of required threshold safeguard important vides an probability need not be discounted run, long unjust jury’s fallibilities. In the wrong, the judge that the is identification kept sufficiently to a convictions will be pass to evidence must be more reliable satisfy process.2 tolerable minimum to due context. muster in this latter judgment sufficiency The as to and By blurring the distinction between evidence, admissibility of evidence, admissibility and then, governed by is different standards most ignores the fundamental majority underlying policies. express that different policies premises evidence law. sure, contexts, in To be both the court evidence, and the due Most rules of “reliability” considers the of the identifica- govern often those that considerations weighs indicia tion and the same five rules, probative to evi operate exclude reliability Biggers. outlined in See ante at McCormick, C. dence. McCormick Cf. But the extent of the reliabili- 181-182. § (E. Cleary at 135 & n. 3d Evidence ty required may differs: an identification 1984). probative That is or ed. evidence enough yet be “reliable” convict probative enough to does not even convict “reliable” to be admissible. policy to admit the evi mean it is sound short, the same word has a different mean- policy in the dence. The consideration ing in judgment each context. is the limits of the rational present context identification, Singleton I that If jurors factfinders.1 all con faculties of if sufficient, admissible, along with oth- juror” model of formed to the “rational evidence, preclude er convict Jackson, no there would be need exclude judgment in the to exclude the bar suggestive prejudicial identification. same identification on due evidence discount, pre juror with rational grounds. cision, probative value the identifica suggestiveness of tion the surround contend, however, The majority seems to jurors But irration circumstances. notwithstanding any that theoretical differ- they tend al the sense that to overvalue ences determi- between two suggestive positive identifi weight nations, Singleton I in fact decided that cation, is such why courts can define which the identification was reliable “prejudicial.” Accordingly, evidence as sufficiency purposes. both duty is the of the for him Yet, decide expressly sufficiently self whether is evidence to reach declined issue. Once the evi Singleton be admissible. 23. It F.2d at is admitted, judge merely dence decides “necessary true that issues decided as a rationally implication” holding could find the whether the court's are a sufficiently part of reliable to convict be the law the case. See Bouchet v. Inc., yond By interposing League, reasonable doubt. National Urban Often, countervailing can with deterrence is the consid- conclude certitude that no rational requires juror suggestive of rele- eration vant, convict could basis Court, Supreme probative prejudicial of such identification: effect evi- however, desirability has held of deter- real, usually dence but too subtle too ring suggestive show-ups is not to be considered unquantifiable permit such conclusion in determining whether to admit the identifica- any particular Accordingly, case. the best safe- Brathwaite, tion evidence. Manson v. event, guard and, safeguard adopted — 98, 111-14, 2243, 2251-53, 53 L.Ed.2d Supreme rely on the inde- Court—is pendent judgment trial there irreparable was not a substantial likelihood 2. argued juror stan- could rational misidentification. adequately protect dard of Jackson would Yet, problem. this it rare that 799, (D.C.Cir.1984). A would therefore decide the due admissibility may necessary in have been issue on its merits. For the reasons stated I in the sense that a defendant Judge Wright’s dissent in Singleton only can be convicted on the of admis- basis the identification evidence should sup- nothing prevented sible But pressed. Accordingly, I would affirm the assuming arguendo court from order below. identification evidence was admissible and issue; deciding in this .then allowed, way, district court would be

remand, to resolve the due issue in precisely the first instance. This is do, in Singleton decided and it is this determination reach not to

due issue that is the law case. Stephanie TRAKAS, Appellant, recognize that the majority Single “[njotwithstanding stated that ton I its QUALITY BRANDS, elements, INC. suggestive at issue place under here took circumstances No. 84-5229. promote reliability.” Single would tend Appeals, United States Court of I, 702 necessary F.2d at 1166. The ton District Columbia Circuit. implication this statement is that there “very was not substantial likelihood of 23, Argued Jan. 1985. irreparable Big misidentifieation.” See April 16, Decided 198, Yet, U.S. at gers, 409 93 S.Ct. at 381. statement, implica this and its necessary

tion, holding not the of the case. The

court held that the identification was convict; be sufficient to expressly pro it refused to reach cess issue. The extent to which the show-

up’s reliability exceeded this threshold

showing any implication may satisfy have been reliable process concerns were dicta. This court part

has held that dicta is not of the law of Center, the case. National Souvenir Inc. Figures, Inc., 503, v. Historic F.2d — (D.C.Cir.), denied, U.S.-, 103, L.Ed.2d 48 accord Scalia, Judge, dissenting Circuit filed Welch, Inc., 527, v. Robert Gertz opinion. Cir.1982); (7th Russell v. Commission er, 782, (9th Cir.1982); see

Quern Jordan, 1148 n. (1979) (law-of-the-case doctrine does preclude consideration of left matter mandate);

open superior Vestal, Law the Single-Suit Case: Pre clusion, (“[ojbvious 1967 Utah L.Rev.

ly, the decision of the court has upon”).

no effect matters not ruled

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. MacIo Singleton

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Jun 25, 1985

Citation: 759 F.2d 176

Docket Number: 83-2173

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.