United States v. Montgomery

150 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Blair was arrested and offered immunity in exchange for her cooperation in the identification and apprehension of her supplier. Blair identified Montgomery (D) as her methamphetamine source, and also implicated her boyfriend, McClain, as a participant in an international methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution network. Police found sixteen pounds of methamphetamine and $47,000 in cash in the trunk of a car registered to D. D's companion, Helen Farley was present during the search and she volunteered to cooperate with the investigation. Her account corroborated Blair's statements regarding: the manufacturing operations in Oregon and Canada; the details of the cross-border transfer of methamphetamine, ephedrine, and cash; and the distribution channels in Eastern Washington and California. Blair's and Farley's statements also led investigators to a methamphetamine factory in Burns, Oregon and two suspected manufacturing sites in Alberta, Canada. D argues that he was deprived of his right to due process because the court admitted the in-court identification testimony of Lance Blondin ('Blondin'). Blondin, an employee of a Canadian chemical supply company, identified D at trial as the purchaser of a large quantity of red phosphorous - a key ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Officers showed photos of D, Marks, and McClain to Blondin. He identified D as the person who, using the name 'Jim Luna,' had purchased a large quantity of red phosphorous on a rush basis. Several weeks prior to trial, Blondin requested that the DEA fax him a photograph of D, to 'have it right in [his] mind that [he] could identify D.' Blondin pinned this photograph to the wall of his office and looked at it several times prior to testifying. The day before Blondin was scheduled to testify, he entered the courtroom with a DEA agent and looked at D, who was seated at the defense table. Blondin testified that he asked the DEA agent to bring him into the courtroom so that he could 'have it straight in my mind that D was the fellow that had purchased the chemicals from us . . . .' D asserts that the combination of identification procedures - the initial photo-identification, the subsequent single photograph identification, and the one-on-one confrontation - was 'unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.' D contends that this in-court identification was tainted by impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification procedures employed by the Government.