Connecticut Supreme Court Limits In-Court Witness Identification of Suspects

The Connecticut State Supreme Court Wednesday denied a Bridgeport man's request for a new trial even as it set new parameters on when judges should allow witnesses to identify suspects from the stand.

The court established guidelines for judges to follow when it comes to first-time in-court identifications of suspects by witnesses. Before a trial starts, the state must alert the judge that a witness will be doing a first-time in-court identification of a suspect.

The judge must review the request and determine that "there is no factual dispute as to the identity of the perpetrator, or the ability of the particular eyewitness to identify the defendant is not at issue."

"We are hard-pressed to imagine how there could be a more suggestive identification procedure than placing a witness on the stand in open court, confronting the witness with the person who the state has accused of committing the crime, and then asking the witness if he can identify the person who committed the crime," Chief Justice Chase Rogers wrote.

The case that brought the issue before the court stemmed from a shooting in Bridgeport in Jan. 2010. Andrew Dickson was convicted of assault for shooting a man twice during a robbery attempt.

The man that he shot, Albert Weibel, could not pick him out of a police lineup after the shooting. But more than two years later, when the case went to trial, Weibel identified Dickson as the man who shot him in front of the jury.

Dickson's lawyer, Andrew Liskov, had argued that Weibel should not have been allowed to identify Dickson in court if he couldn't do so in a police lineup but the judge overruled him.

Dickson was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison. The Appellate Court denied his appeal but the high court took the case.

"I am happy that the law has been changed radically when it comes to in-court identifications but I am very disappointed for my client that the court didn't apply the new law to his case," Liskov said.

Special Deputy Assistant State's Attorney Laurie N. Feldman, who argued the case before the court, said the ruling and the procedures created by it are "novel."

"The Connecticut Supreme Court today overruled state precedents and centuries of practice, and held that, when a victim or witness did not identify a defendant in a pretrial identification procedure such as a photo array, federal due process requires that the state not be permitted to ask the victim or witness to make an in-court identification of the defendant during trial, unless certain conditions are met," Feldman said.

"It is a common occurrence for victims or witnesses not to make pretrial identifications from mugshot photo arrays," she said. "This ruling is therefore likely to affect a significant number of criminal cases."

The justices said they realized the effect their new ruling would have on cases that are already on appeal where in-court identification occurred. The court said each case much be judged on its own facts and that some cases may get sent back to Superior Court for judges to review.

"If the reviewing court concludes that the admission of the identification was harmful, the only remedy that can be provided is a remand to the trial court for the purpose of evaluating the reliability and the admissibility of the in-court identification under the totality of the circumstances," Rogers wrote.

In terms of Dickson's case, the court ruled that "the admission of the in-court identification here was harmless and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court."

"It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict even without Weibel's in-court identification of the defendant," the court ruled.

The decision regarding Dickson's appeal was unanimous. Three justices disagreed with the procedural steps that the majority of the court issued.

The reliability of witness identifications both in and court of court have come under greater scrutiny over the past few years as being unreliable and prejudicial particularly to African American defendants. The Innocence Project submitted a legal brief in this case arguing against them.

"If this procedure is not suggestive, then no procedure is suggestive. Indeed, the present case starkly demonstrates the problem, in that Weibel was unable to identify the defendant in a photographic array, but had absolutely no difficulty doing so when the defendant was sitting next to defense counsel in court and was one of only two African-American males in the room," Rogers wrote..

Rogers said first-time in court identifications are from a bygone era and not necessary today.

"First time in-court identifications became the norm at a time when travel was by foot or by horse, communications were by post, and official investigative resources were very limited. Consequently, it presumably would have been very burdensome both for the government and for eyewitnesses to arrange for a pretrial identification of the defendant," Rogers wrote.

There are no such problems now, with a variety of ways to communicate, the court ruled.

Maya Murphy P.C. has the resources and expertise to offer you the best possible representation throughout the criminal process. If you are facing criminal charges or wish to appeal your case, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. atJMaya@Mayalaw.com.

For continuous access to the legal world, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We offer the latest updates on caselaw and legal news. In addition, informational videos are available for your convenience on our YouTube channel. 

Source- Dave Altimari, State Supreme Court Alters Rules On In-Court Witness Identification Of Suspects, The Hartford Courant (Connecticut), Aug. 3, 2016, available at http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-supreme-court-suspect-identification-20160803-story.html