## Facts

- An undercover narcotics officer purchased heroin in a Hartford apartment building hallway from an unknown seller after the door opened partially.
- The officer observed the seller from about two feet away for two to three minutes in natural light and later gave another officer a detailed description (height, build, complexion, hair, cheekbones).
- Based on the description, police suspected Brathwaite and left the undercover officer a single police photograph of him.
- Two days after the sale, the officer viewed the single photograph alone and identified Brathwaite as the seller; no lineup or photo array occurred.
- At trial about eight months later, the photograph was admitted and the officer made a positive in-court identification; Brathwaite presented an alibi supported by his wife and doctor.
- A jury convicted Brathwaite of heroin possession and sale; state appellate review affirmed.
- After federal habeas proceedings, the court of appeals ordered exclusion of the identification as unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable; the Supreme Court reviewed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Due Process Clause requires automatic exclusion of identification evidence obtained through an unnecessarily suggestive police procedure, without considering reliability.
2. Whether a single-photograph identification may be admitted when, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification is sufficiently reliable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and upheld admission of the identification evidence.
- The Court rejected a per se exclusion rule for unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures.
- The Court held that reliability is the controlling criterion for admissibility under due process.
- Applying the totality-of-circumstances test, the Court found the identification reliable despite the suggestive, unnecessary single-photograph procedure.
- The Court concluded there was no substantial likelihood of misidentification and left the conviction intact.

## Legal Principles

- Due process does not require automatic suppression of an identification solely because the police used an unnecessarily suggestive procedure.
- “Reliability is the linchpin” for admissibility of identification testimony; courts assess reliability under the totality of the circumstances.
- Reliability is evaluated using the *Neil v. Biggers* factors: (1) opportunity to view, (2) degree of attention, (3) accuracy of prior description, (4) level of certainty, and (5) time between crime and confrontation.
- Courts weigh these reliability factors against the corrupting effect of the suggestive procedure; evidence may be admitted if reliability outweighs the risk created by suggestiveness.
- A single-photograph identification is not categorically unconstitutional; it is admissible when indicia of reliability are strong enough to defeat a substantial likelihood of misidentification.

## Conclusion

The Court held that suggestiveness alone does not trigger exclusion of identification evidence under the Fourteenth Amendment; instead, courts must admit or suppress based on whether, considering the *Biggers* factors and the effect of the suggestive procedure, the identification is reliable under the totality of the circumstances.


Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977)