The Anesthesia Identification

The client was charged with shooting the victim multiple times at close range for reasons that were never brought to light. Through the extraordinary efforts of the first responders and the UPMC medical staff, the victim survived the shooting. He required significant medical intervention including multiple surgeries.

The defendant was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and related charges. While the victim was recovering from surgery in the hospital, several Allegheny County homicide detectives visited him to question him about the shooting. The detectives asked the victim to review a photo array that included an image of the defendant.

While still under the affects of the major surgery and general anesthesia, as well as a cocktail of powerful pain medication, the police claimed that the victim was able to make a positive identification of the defendant through the photo array. However, the experienced homicide detectives made several significant errors in their procedure, including the fact that one of the detectives who presented the photo array knew the identity of the suspect. The photo array should have been presented in a double-blind manner. This means that the detectives who present the photo array to the witness should not know the suspect’s identity. A double-blind procedure would prevent any possibility that the detective could consciously or unconsciously influence the witness into identifying the defendant. Though this was a significant investigation error, it did not amount to a constitutional violation, so the identification was not suppressed. In other words, the weight to be afforded the photo array identification was a question of fact for the jury to decide, not a question of law for the judge to decide.

After the victim identified the defendant as the shooter through the photo array, the police interviewed the victim’s sister. She claimed that she just happened to be walking along a trail when she heard the defendant brag to a group of friends that he had shot the victim.

The Defendant proceeded to a jury trial. Both the Commonwealth and the defense presented expert witnesses to testify to the victim’s medical records and the effect that the surgery, anesthesia, and medication would have had on his ability to make an accurate identification. In addition to the photo array identification, the victim also made an in-court identification of the defendant as the shooter. His sister also testified to her claim that she had heard the defendant essentially confess to the shooting.

Attorney Sontz was able to show that the police investigation was not conducted correctly and that both the victim and his sister had been influenced by improper police investigation techniques.

The jury did not accept the Commonwealth’s evidence and returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on all counts.