Young v. United States

• Decision Date: 24 January 1969
• Docket Number: No. 21504.,21504.
• Parties: Tyrone R. YOUNG, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

132 US App. DC 257, 407 F.2d 720 (1969)

Tyrone R. YOUNG, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 21504.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued October 17, 1968.

Decided January 24, 1969.

Certiorari Denied April 28, 1969.

Mr. J. Sumner Jones, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Richard P. Williams, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this court), was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. William S. Block, Attorney, Department of Justice, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. William G. Reynolds, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and TAMM, Circuit Judge.

Certiorari Denied April 28, 1969. See 89 S.Ct. 1608.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction for robbery on the ground that identification evidence introduced at trial did not satisfy the requirements of due process under Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967).

The robbery of Eckington Liquor, Inc. was committed by a man wielding a chrome-plated revolver who made away with $181 in cash, including a $2 bill. The victim, a Mr. Pomerantz, called the police and told them the robber was "light-skinned, about five-foot-six to five-foot-nine, about 135 to 145 pounds, wearing a trenchcoat, dark sunglasses, and a dark hat." On the basis of this description, the police arrested appellant in the vicinity a few minutes later and found a toy revolver and $181 in cash, including a $2 bill, in his pocket. He also had a trenchcoat over his arm, a dark hat in his hand, and a pair of dark glasses in his possession. The police took him straight to Pomerantz, who made a positive identification only after appellant was made to put on his hat, trenchcoat, and shades.

We are satisfied that this fresh on-the-scene identification, made immediately after the robbery, was admissible under our holding in Wise v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 279, 383 F.2d 206 (1967), cert denied, 390 U.S. 964, 88 S.Ct. 1069, 19 L.Ed.2d 1164 (1968). See also Bates v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 405 F.2d 1104, (decided December 13, 1968). Obliging appellant to don his own apparel did not make the resulting identification less reliable; indeed, in the circumstances it is doubtful whether a reliable identification could have been made in the absence of any of the robber's distinctive accouterments. Due process does not require that an eyewitness be able to recognize the culprit no matter how (or whether) dressed.

A few hours after the robbery, Pomerantz was shown two pictures of appellant, whom he again identified as the robber. He was not shown pictures of any other person. No testimony concerning this highly suggestive photographic viewing¹ was admitted into evidence, but appellant contends that the in-court identification may have been based upon it. Ordinarily, where an improper...