Kirkland v. State

Johnathan Kirkland was convicted of malice murder and other crimes for shooting a nightclub owner and wounding others during an attempted robbery outside an Atlanta club. One of the victims, Michael McGee, Jr., could not identify anyone in a photo lineup during a first interview because he was on heavy pain medication, but a week later, after his medication had worn off, he viewed the same lineup again and identified Kirkland with what he called 100 percent certainty. Kirkland argued the trial court should have thrown out that identification because the detective already knew he was the suspect, because McGee, Jr. saw the same photo twice, and because a friend had shown McGee, Jr. a photo of Kirkland beforehand. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed on all three points, holding that none of these facts made the identification procedure so suggestive that it effectively told the witness who to pick, and it affirmed Kirkland's conviction and sentence.

A photo lineup is unduly suggestive only if it leads a witness to the virtually inevitable identification of the defendant, equivalent to police saying 'this is our suspect'; here, the detective's prior knowledge of the suspect, the repeated viewing of the same lineup, and an outside friend's earlier photo showing did not meet that standard.

The ruling confirms that Georgia police may administer photo lineups even when they already know who the suspect is, and that showing a witness the same photo lineup twice, once medication side effects clear, does not by itself make an identification unreliable evidence.

Affirmed

1. The court applied the two-step test for identification evidence: first asking whether the lineup procedure itself was impermissibly suggestive, meaning it essentially told the witness who to pick, and only if so, whether there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification.
2. Georgia law specifically allows photo lineups to be administered by officers who already know the suspect's identity, so the detective's prior knowledge of Kirkland as a suspect did not make the lineup improper.
3. Showing the witness the same lineup a second time, after his medication side effects wore off, was less suggestive than a prior case where the court allowed an identification even though the defendant's photo was the only one repeated across two different lineups.
4. A friend showing the witness a photo of Kirkland before the police interview was an outside action unrelated to the police procedure, and the witness testified he could not even recall whose photo the friend had shown him.
5. Because none of Kirkland's three arguments showed the police procedure led the witness to an almost automatic identification, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to suppress the identification.

• murder conviction
• photo lineup identification
• due process
• gang-related shooting