In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 13-1350
UNITID STATIS OI AMIRICA,
!"#$%&$''()**+""++,
,-
MASON M. }OHNSON,
.+'+%/#%&()**+""#%&.
____________________
AeaI from lhe Uniled Slales Dislricl Courl for lhe
Norlhern Dislricl of IIIinois, Iaslern Division.
No. 12 CR 32-1 !"#"$$% !' (%))*"+",, 12/3+.
____________________
ARGUID }ANUARY 28, 2014 DICIDID IIRUARY 6, 2014
____________________
efore WOOD, 45$+' 12/3+, and IASTIRROOK and KANNI,
4$672$& 12/3+8.
IASTIRROOK, 4$672$& 12/3+. A |ury convicled Mason
}ohnson of robbing lhree banks, and a |udge senlenced him
lo 220 monlhs' imrisonmenl. The rinciaI leslimony
againsl him came from }oseh Irince, vho loId lhe |ury lhal
he and }ohnson had Ianned and execuled lhe robberies lo-
gelher. }ohnson asked lhe |ury lo discounl lhe leslimony of
Irince, a confessed criminaI. The roseculor soughl lo boI-
Case: 13-1350 Document: 42 Filed: 02/06/2014 Pages: 9
2 No. 13-1350
sler Irince's leslimony vilh lhal of Amanda WiIIiams, vho
reIaled lhal Irince asked her lo give him a ride one day and
vas accomanied by a slranger vhen she icked him u.
She drove her assengers lo severaI Iaces, Iasl of aII a gro-
cery slore. Irince and lhe slranger enlered lhe slore and
robbed lhe branch bank il conlained. WiIIiams had nol mel
lhe slranger before and did nol knov his name, bul she
icked a holo of }ohnson from an array of six holos. }ohn-
son's onIy aeIIale argumenl is lhal lhe |udge shouId nol
have aIIoved WiIIiams and lhe agenl vho conducled lhe ar-
ray lo leslify aboul lhis idenlificalion.
}ohnson observes lhal lhis courl has suggesled lhal oIice
shov holograhs sequenliaIIy ralher lhan as arl of an ar-
ray. See, e.g., 9%$&+/ :&#&+8 ,- ;<6/, 683 I.3d 761 (7lh Cir.
2012), 9%$&+/ :&#&+8 ,- =6<>%, 471 I.3d 802 (7lh Cir. 2006).
Some research in sychoIogy, vhich lhese oinions cile,
concIudes lhal a sequenliaI disIay is referabIe because il
forces lhe vilness lo comare each holograh againsl
memory, ralher lhan one holograh againsl anolher, and il
avoids lhe risk lhal a vilness viII concIude lhal lhe susecl's
iclure is bound lo be among lhe six (or some) olher number
of holos in an array. CarefuI officers leII a vilness lhal a
holo sread does nol necessariIy incIude any susecl (lhal
vas done here), bul vilnesses sliII may susecl lhal il does
or may roceed lhal vay subconsciousIy, because none of us
is fuIIy in conlroI of lhe rocesses by vhich lhe brain makes
idenlificalions.
Some arls of }ohnson's briefs imIy lhal <%"? a sequen-
liaI resenlalion can Iead lo admissibIe evidence, bul al oraI
argumenl his Iavyer sensibIy discIaimed any such roosaI.
The Sureme Courl has nol adoled a ruIe lhal onIy lhe
Case: 13-1350 Document: 42 Filed: 02/06/2014 Pages: 9
No. 13-1350 3
besl aroach (as lhe Ialesl sociaI science research idenlifies
lhe besl currenl underslanding) can be used. Inslead, il has
concIuded, |ljhe Conslilulion . rolecls a defendanl
againsl a conviclion based on evidence of queslionabIe reIia-
biIily, nol by rohibiling inlroduclion of lhe evidence, bul by
affording lhe defendanl means lo ersuade lhe |ury lhal lhe
evidence shouId be discounled as unvorlhy of credil. !+66?
,- @+> A#B*85$6+, 132 S. Cl. 716, 723 (2012). The due rocess
cIause of lhe fiflh amendmenl does forbid lhe use of an
idenlificalion rocedure lhal is bolh suggeslive and unnec-
essary. |ul ejven vhen lhe oIice use such a rocedure .
suression of lhe resuIling idenlificalion is nol lhe inevila-
bIe consequence. C/. al 724 (cilalions omilled). Suression
ensues onIy vhen lhere is a very subslanliaI IikeIihood of
$66+*#6#D"+ misidenlificalion, :$BB<%8 ,- 9%$&+/ :&#&+8, 390
U.S. 377, 384 (1968) (emhasis added)irrearabIe in lhe
sense lhal lhe rocedures of lriaI vouId nol suffice lo aIIov
|urors lo searale reIiabIe from mislaken idenlificalions.
}ohnson has nol allemled lo shov lhal aII holo sreads
are bolh unnecessary and suggeslive, or lhal aII idenlifica-
lions faciIilaled by a holo sread make il imossibIe for
counseI lo use lhe looIs of lhe adversary rocess lo exIore
an idenlificalion's reIiabiIily. Indeed, some recenl research
has caIIed inlo queslion lhe viev lhal sequenliaI resenla-
lion of holograhs is suerior lo holo sreads. David G.
DoboIyi & Chad S. Dodson, E?+>$&%+88 4<%'$/+%7+ $% :$B2"&#(
%+<28 #%/ :+F2+%&$#" G$%+2*8H ) 46$&+6$<% :5$'& )77<2%& '<6 :+(
F2+%&$#" I$8&#J+% C/+%&$'$7#&$<% K,+67<%'$/+%7+, 19 }. Ixeri-
menlaI IsychoIogy: AIied 345 (2013), gives some reasons
and ciles olher sludies. The Sureme Courl of Nev }ersey,
vhich has gone furlher lhan any olher aeIIale lribunaI in
conlroIIing lhe melhods of oblaining and resenling eyevil-
Case: 13-1350 Document: 42 Filed: 02/06/2014 Pages: 9
4 No. 13-1350
ness idenlificalions, has decIined lo require sequenliaI melh-
ods excIusiveIy. See :&#&+ ,- A+%/+68<%, 208 N.}. 208, 25658
(2011). The Sureme Courl's aroach, vhich !+66? summa-
rizes, recIudes a federaI courl of aeaIs from requiring
lhem.
We lherefore ask vhelher lhe dislricl |udge erred in con-
cIuding lhal lhe holo array vas nol unnecessariIy sugges-
livea sub|ecl lhal a courl of aeaIs resoIves indeendenl-
Iy, bul vilh due deference lo lhe lriaI courl's findings of
hisloricaI facl. 9%$&+/ :&#&+8 ,- A#66$8, 281 I.3d 667, 67071
(7lh Cir. 2002). Afler finding lhe array nol suggeslive, lhe
|udge sloed lhe anaIysis, for she did nol need lo consider
olher queslions, such as vhelher WiIIiams had vieved }ohn-
son Iong enough lo rovide a soIid basis for memory inde-
endenl of lhe array, and vhelher any shorlcoming in lhe
rocedure lhe oIice used couId be broughl lo lhe |ury's al-
lenlion al lriaI.
The |udge found lhal lhe array vas roer because aII six
holos mel WiIIiams's descrilion: a baId bIack man vilh a
smaII amounl of faciaI hair. A gIance al lhe array shovs lhis
lo be correcl:
Case: 13-1350 Document: 42 Filed: 02/06/2014 Pages: 9
No. 13-1350 5

AII six men aIso vere in lhe same cIolhing and holo-
grahed againsl lhe same background. }ohnson's Iavyer ob-
serves lhal lhe men have differenl skin coIoralion, bul lhal is
inevilabIe in any array or sequence of holos|usl as il is
inevilabIe lhal lhe faciaI hair, ear sizes, and chin shaes viII
nol be idenlicaI. A Iineu of cIones is nol required. 9%$&+/
:&#&+8 ,- )66$%3&<%, 159 I.3d 1069, 1073 (7lh Cir. 1998). |Ijl's
imossibIe lo find holos of ersons vho are idenlicaI lo a
susecl . and aIso undesirabIe, because lhen lhe vilness
Case: 13-1350 Document: 42 Filed: 02/06/2014 Pages: 9
6 No. 13-1350
vouIdn'l be abIe lo idenlify lhe susecl. ;<6/, 683 I.3d al
766. Nolhing aboul lhis array makes lhe holograh of
}ohnson (-3) sland oul. The array vas nol suggeslive, and il
is lherefore unnecessary lo consider lhe remainder of lhe
anaIysis rescribed by !+66? and ils redecessors, such as
:$BB<%8, I#%8<% ,- =6#&5>#$&+, 432 U.S. 98 (1977), @+$" ,- =$3(
3+68, 409 U.S. 188 (1972), and :&<,#"" ,- .+%%<, 388 U.S. 293
(1967).
We have said enough lo decide lhe aeaI. efore cIos-
ing, hovever, ve add lhal eau . rindIey, vho reresenl-
ed }ohnson in lhis courl, made il unduIy hard for us lo ac-
cess lhe maleriaIs necessary for disosilion. The firsl sle in
anaIyzing an aeaI is underslanding lhe basis of lhe dislricl
courl's decision. A courl of aeaIs can'l decide vhelher a
dislricl |udge made cIearIy erroneous findings or commilled
a IegaI error vilhoul knoving vhal lhe |udge did and vhy.
Thal's vhy Circuil RuIe 30(a) requires counseI for lhe aeI-
Ianl lo incIude, in an aendix lo lhe brief, any oinion,
memorandum of decision, findings of facl and concIusions
of Iav, or oraI slalemenl of reasons deIivered by lhe lriaI
courl or adminislralive agency uon lhe rendering of lhal
|udgmenl, decree, or order. Circuil RuIe 30(b)(1) adds lhal
lhe aendix aIso musl incIude any olher oinions, orders,
or oraI ruIings in lhe case lhal address lhe issues soughl lo
be raised.
}ohnson fiIed a relriaI molion asking lhe dislricl courl lo
excIude evidence lhal WiIIiams had seIecled }ohnson from
lhe array. The |udge denied lhis molion in an unreasoned
minule order enlered on }uIy 3, 2012. Anyone reading rind-
Iey's brief vouId lhink lhal lhe courl 5#/ no reasonslhal
lhe decision vas vhoIIy arbilrary. ul lhe brief for lhe Unil-
Case: 13-1350 Document: 42 Filed: 02/06/2014 Pages: 9
No. 13-1350 7
ed Slales loId us lhal lhere vere findings and reasons, and il
incIudes a shorl quolalion from lhe hearing heId on }uIy 3.
UnforlunaleIy, lhe Uniled Slales did nol suIy lhe fuII
lranscriland vhen ve Iooked for il lo reare for argu-
menl, ve discovered lhal il vas nol in lhe record. Thal ham-
ered our abiIily lo evaIuale lhe argumenls for bolh sides.
(ShorlIy afler argumenl il vas added lo lhe record, ve have
relrieved and read il.)
Thal lhe |udge gave reasons, vhich rindIey omilled,
shovs lhal he vioIaled nol onIy RuIe 30(b)(1) bul aIso Circuil
RuIe 30(d): The aendix lo each aeIIanl's brief shaII con-
lain a slalemenl lhal aII of lhe maleriaIs required by arls (a)
and (b) of lhis ruIe are incIuded. If lhere are no maleriaIs
vilhin lhe scoe of arls (a) and (b) of lhis ruIe, counseI shaII
so cerlify. }ohnson's brief conlains lhis reresenlalion: I,
eau . rindIey, counseI for lhe Defendanl-aeIIanl Mr.
Mason }ohnson, slale lhal lhe aendices submilled vilh
lhis brief on aeaI incororale lhe maleriaI required under
Circuil RuIe 30(a) and (b). This reresenlalion is faIse.
We asked rindIey al oraI argumenl hov lhe omission
and faIsehood had occurred. He reIied lhal he had been re-
lained as }ohnson's Iavyer Iale in lhe rocess. The aeaI
began in Iebruary 2013, and by }uIy 26, 2013, vhen RaIh }.
SchindIer, }r., }ohnson's firsl aeIIale Iavyer, asked lhe
courl lo aIIov rindIey lo lake over lhe aeaI, lhe lime lo
fiIe lhe oening brief had been exlended lhree limes. We
granled a fourlh exlension, aIIoving six veeks for rindIey
lo reare adequaleIy, bul added lhal lhe nev dale vas fi-
naI. (Our order of }uIy 30, 2013, rovides: No furlher exlen-
sions, al lhe requesl of SchindIer or any olher Iavyer rere-
senling Mason }ohnson, viII be aIIoved under any circum-
Case: 13-1350 Document: 42 Filed: 02/06/2014 Pages: 9
8 No. 13-1350
slances.) rindIey loId us al argumenl lhal SchindIer ne-
gIecled lo order lhe lranscril of lhe }uIy 3, 2012, hearing
and lhal, by lhe lime he discovered lhis hoIe in lhe record, il
vas loo Iale lo gel lhe hearing lranscribed and sliII meel lhe
deadIine. On Selember 9 he asked for an exlension of lime
so lhal he couId oblain lhe missing lranscril, given lhe or-
der of }uIy 30, lhe courl lurned him dovn. rindIey lhen
eIecled nol lo order lhe lranscril.
rindIey's deferred arrivaI as }ohnson's aeIIale Iavyer,
couIed vilh his redecessor's negIecl, may exIain vhy he
did nol 5#,+ lhe lranscril in lime lo fiIe a brief (lhough he
oughl lo have discovered lhe robIem in }uIy ralher lhan
Selember), bul il does nol exIain vhy he faiIed lo <6/+6 lhe
lranscril. He couId have done so and furnished il lo lhe
courl as soon as il vas readyvhich vouId have been in
lime for lhe Uniled Slales' brief and }ohnson's reIy brief.
And il assuredIy does nol exIain vhy rindIey chose lo fiIe
a faIse cerlificale, a sle lhal rindIey's narralive reveaIs as
deIiberale deceil. He J%+> lhal lhe aendix omilled lhe dis-
lricl |udge's findings and exIanalion, yel he loId lhe courl
lhal aII required maleriaIs had been incIuded. Ior a Iavyer
vho Iasl year vas heId in conleml for Iying lo a federaI
|udge, see 9%$&+/ :&#&+8 ,- =6$&&<%, 731 I.3d 745 (7lh Cir. 2013),
lhal vas a mighly slrange decision. (The dislricl |udge in
=6$&&<% used lhe summary-conleml rocess under Ied. R.
Crim. I. 42(b), vhich ve delermined vas a mislake. We re-
manded for a more comIele rocess.)
rindIey shouId have ordered lhe lranscril, noled in lhe
RuIe 30(d) slalemenl lhal il vas being reared and vouId
be furnished as soon as ossibIe, and rovided il before lhe
aneI of |udges slarled lheir rearalion (vhich haens a
Case: 13-1350 Document: 42 Filed: 02/06/2014 Pages: 9
No. 13-1350 9
fev veeks before argumenl). He did none of lhese lhings,
choosing deceil over assislance lo lhe courl. CouId rindIey
have lhoughl lhal neilher lhe roseculor nor any one of lhe
lhree |udges vouId nolice lhal lhe dislricl |udge's exIana-
lion for her decision vas missing` Yel he nol onIy faiIed lo
order lhe lranscril bul aIso ignored il once lhe roseculor
had il reared and reIied on il in lhe brief for lhe Uniled
Slales. rindIey's reIy brief, Iike his oening brief, roceeds
as if lhe dislricl |udge neilher had nor gave any reason for
her decision.
rindIey may nol have sel oul lo deveIo a reulalion as
a Iavyer vhose vord cannol be lrusled, bul he has acquired
il. This oinion serves as a ubIic rebuke and as a varning
lhal any furlher deceil viII Iead lo an order requiring rind-
Iey lo shov cause vhy he shouId nol be susended or dis-
barred. We aIso direcl rindIey lo ay $2,000 as a sanclion
for his inlenlionaI vioIalion of Circuil RuIe 30(d). See, e.g.,
9%$&+/ :&#&+8 ,- L<3+68, 270 I.3d 1076, 108485 (7lh Cir. 2001)
($1,000 fine for a negIigenl vioIalion).
The |udgmenl is affirmed, rindIey is fined $2,000, aya-
bIe lo lhe cIerk of courl vilhin lvo veeks.
Case: 13-1350 Document: 42 Filed: 02/06/2014 Pages: 9