mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005853.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "70 of 84",
    "document_number": "397",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "there are several similar quality photos in the book. (See Ex. A, photos). In any event, these highly conclusory statements fall well short of transforming the careful confirmatory identification used in this case into an unduly suggestive procedure. The motion to suppress should be denied on this basis, and the identification should be admitted at trial, where the defendant will have a full opportunity to contest the persuasiveness of that evidence through cross-examination and attorney argument. See Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 973 (where there has been no showing of suggestiveness, \"any question as to the reliability of the [identification] goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility\"). Even if the \"confirmatory identification\" procedure was impermissibly suggestive as the defendant claims, which it was not, Minor Victim-4's identification had clear independent reliability because Minor Victim-4 stated that she knew the defendant by name from previous interactions. For example, in Wiggins v. Greiner, the Second Circuit declined to address a disputed question about a confirmatory identification's suggestiveness because the independent basis for the in-court identification was so clear. See Wiggins, 132 F. App'x 861, 864-66 (2d Cir. 2005) (witness saw defendant at distance of 50 feet under \"streetlight illumination\" but was familiar with defendant from seeing him previously in neighborhood); accord United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280, 288 (2d Cir. 1999) (officers' in-court identifications reliable where officers had unobstructed views of the defendant selling narcotics on two occasions, one of which was during daylight at close range); United States v. Crumble, No. 18 Cr. 32 (ARR), 2018 WL 1737642, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2018) (collecting cases finding that \"in-court identification is [] admissible, despite an improper pre-trial identification procedure, if the witness is familiar with the defendant",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "there are several similar quality photos in the book. (See Ex. A, photos). In any event, these highly conclusory statements fall well short of transforming the careful confirmatory identification used in this case into an unduly suggestive procedure. The motion to suppress should be denied on this basis, and the identification should be admitted at trial, where the defendant will have a full opportunity to contest the persuasiveness of that evidence through cross-examination and attorney argument. See Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 973 (where there has been no showing of suggestiveness, \"any question as to the reliability of the [identification] goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility\").",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if the \"confirmatory identification\" procedure was impermissibly suggestive as the defendant claims, which it was not, Minor Victim-4's identification had clear independent reliability because Minor Victim-4 stated that she knew the defendant by name from previous interactions. For example, in Wiggins v. Greiner, the Second Circuit declined to address a disputed question about a confirmatory identification's suggestiveness because the independent basis for the in-court identification was so clear. See Wiggins, 132 F. App'x 861, 864-66 (2d Cir. 2005) (witness saw defendant at distance of 50 feet under \"streetlight illumination\" but was familiar with defendant from seeing him previously in neighborhood); accord United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280, 288 (2d Cir. 1999) (officers' in-court identifications reliable where officers had unobstructed views of the defendant selling narcotics on two occasions, one of which was during daylight at close range); United States v. Crumble, No. 18 Cr. 32 (ARR), 2018 WL 1737642, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2018) (collecting cases finding that \"in-court identification is [] admissible, despite an improper pre-trial identification procedure, if the witness is familiar with the defendant",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "69",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005853",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "Apr. 11, 2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397",
      "922 F.2d",
      "132 F. App'x 861",
      "192 F.3d 280",
      "18 Cr. 32 (ARR)",
      "2018 WL 1737642"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the admissibility of identification evidence and cites various court cases. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}