Manson V Brathwaite

Amanda Runyan
Professor Norris
Criminal Evidence 6
29 October 2014
Manson v Brathwaite (1970)
In the case of Manson v Brathwaite in Hartford Connecticut on May 5, 1977 an African American undercover Police Officer named Jimmy D. Glover and his informant, Henry Alton Brown were assigned to purchase heroin from the apartment complex of 201 Westland from “Dickie Boy” Cicero who was a well known narcotics dealer in the area. When identified through a photograph given to Officer Glover, seen two days after the incident Cicero was arrested on July 27 while visiting Mrs. Ramsey on the third floor of 201 Westland. This was the apartment in which Officer Glover purchased the narcotics from Cicero. The suspect was charged with two counts of possession

and sale of heroin. The jury found the respondent guilty of both counts. The Trial Court affirmed and the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed. The respondent filed a writ of habeas corpus with the federal court because he believed his 14th amendment due process rights were violated, it was denied. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed it saying the photograph was suggestive and unnecessary (Manson v Brathwaite).
Upon Glover and Brown entering the building, they were observed by backup officers D’Onofrio and Gaffey.

The two traveled up the stairs to the third floor where Glover and Brown approached the door and Glover knocked awaiting an answer from Cicero. The apartment was lit by natural light and made it easy to see Cicero. The door was opened twelve to eighteen inches to where Glover observed a man standing and a women standing behind him. Brown identified himself to the man and Glover asked for the “two things” of narcotics. The man held out his hand and Glover handed him money for the narcotics. The man shut the door, when he returned with the narcotics he gave Glover two glassine bags. Within this transaction Glover was standing two feet away from the man and was able to observe his face. The time frame as when the door opened for the transaction and when the door closed the second time was about five to seven minutes (Manson v

Brathwaite).
Glover and Brown described the seller to D’Onofrio and Gaffy to be, "a colored man, approximately five feet eleven inches tall, dark complexion, black hair, short Afro style, and having high cheekbones, and of heavy build" (Manson v Brathwaite). D’Onofrio thought he knew the man and had a photo of the suspect from the Record Division of Hartford Police Department (Manson v Brathwaite). He dropped the photo off at Glover’s office where he viewed the photo alone on May 7th two days after the incident and identified the photo as “Dicki Boy” (Manson v Brathwaite).
At the trial the photographs that Glover used to identify the respondent was received in evidence with no objections.

Glover felt confident in identifying the respondent even though he has not seen the respondent in eight months. The respondent took the stand and stated that he had been ill on May 5th at his apartment. His wife testified of his illness and so did his doctor.
The photograph in this case is seen as suggestive confrontation evidence. Even though the identification was not from a photo array, the officer who is well trained and specializes in observational situations is a valid aspect to this case. This is not a situation of substantial misidentification because the trained officer was a few feet away and could visually observe the man’s features. The Per se rule keeps evidence from the jury that is reliable and relevant, as for this situation the observation during the drug transaction is relevant to the suspects arrest and reliable since the officer observed

it.
The photograph in this case is seen as suggestive evidence. Even though the identification was not from a photo array, the officer who is well trained and specializes in observational situations is a valid aspect to this case (Manson v Brathwaite). This is not a misidentification because the trained officer was a few feet away and could visually observe the man’s features. The Per se rule keeps evidence from the jury that is reliable and relevant, as for this situation the observation during the drug transaction is relevant to the suspects arrest and reliable since the officer observed it himself.
Reliability is supported by the opportunity to view the crime at the time it occurred. The natural light of the window and the apartment helped Glover observe the man’s identity. The degree of attention was important to Glover because he knew he had to pay close attention to detail in order to use against the respondent in court. Since Glover reported what he saw to the other officers a few minutes after the incident this shows that Glovers descriptions are accurate. Glover felt confident in his identification and answered a question about if the person in the photo was the man who he made a transaction with and Glover stated “This is no question whatsoever” (Manson v. Brathwaite). This covers the level of certainty. The time between the crime and confrontation depicts if any coerciveness was involved in this case but being that Glover identified the photo at his leisure and alone, it is safe to say that the identification was analyzed thoroughly. These factors reflect the suggestive identification.