People of the Virgin Islands v. Kareem Richardson

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ) ) Plaintiff ) ) Case No SX 20 CR 317 vs ) ) KARBEM RICHARDSON ) Cite as 2021 VI Super 107U ) Defendant ) )

AMIE M SIMPSON ESQ MARTIAL A WEBSTER SR ESQ Assistant Attorney General Law Office of Martial A Webster V I Department of Justice 1 16 Queen Cross Street 213 Estate La Reine Kingshill Frederiksted V I 00840 RRlBox6151 PO Box 1568 St Croix V I 00850 Kingshill V I 00851 Attorneyfor the People ofthe I zrgm Islands Attorneyfor the Defendant

CARTY RENEE GUMBS, Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

fill BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant 5 ‘Motion to Suppress Identification Evidence and

Request for Evidentiary Hearing with Points and Authority, filed on July 2, 2021 The People of the

Virgin Islands (the People ) filed their opposition on August 2, 2021, and a suppression hearing was

held on September 24, 2021 Defendant Kareem Richardson moved to suppress two (2) photo arrays

and in court identification of the Defendant at trial The Court viewed two (2) video exhibits of

witnesses selecting the Defendant in photo arrays Defendant 8 exhibit 5 photo array dated November

6, 2020, and also heard the sworn testimonies of Detective Aisha Jules and Defendant Richardson

Based on all the evidence at the hearing, this Court does not find the pre trial identification procedure

used by Detective Jules impermissiny or unduly suggestive Further, even upon analysis of the People ofthe Virgin Islands v Kareem Richardson 2021 VI Super 107U Case No SX 20 CR 317 Memorandum Opinion

totality of the circumstances, the Court arrives to the same conclusion that there was no substantial

likelihood of misidentification Therefore, this Court will gem Defendant Richardson’s motion

I FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1|2 The following testimony was adduced from the hearing held on September 24, 202l

Detective Jules has been employed for approximately thirteen (13) years at the Virgin Islands Police

Department Detective Jules is investigating the murder of Mr Bomani Christian (“Christian” or “the

deceased”) which occurred on or about November 1, 2020, during the day, at his home #69

Catherine 3 Hope, Christiansted St Croix, Virgin Islands The deceased left behind two (2) children

twin boys aged approximately ten (10) years Within hours of the incident, police officers and

detectives elicited information from both witnesses, who were present at the house at the time of the

homicide Each witness identified Richardson in separate interviews in different photo arrays One

witness identified Richardson as the fourth picture bottom left, in photo array number 1 The other

witness identified Richardson as the third picture, top right, in photo array number 2 Both witnesses

provided the police with information such as the name of Defendant’s daughter and Defendant’s

nickname Jaco ”

113 Testimony from Detective Jules further provided Richardson went to the police station on

November 2, 2020, and spoke with Detective Leon Cruz regarding a picture of him circulating on

social media associating him with the homicide Richardson returned the following day on November

3, 2020, and spoke with Detective Jules about the same picture and accusations surrounding his

involvement Detective Jules testified she investigated the matter and told Defendant there was

2 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Kareem Richardson 2021 VI Super 107U Case No SX 20 CR 317 Memorandum Opinion

nothing she could do and instructed him to file a police report However, Richardson elected not to

file a report and left

14 The People entered into evidence Detective Jules’ separate video interviews of the two

witnesses and the photo arrays examined by each witness On video, Detective Jules advised the

witnesses to choose the guy(s) in the house only if you are absolutely sure ” She carefully explained

the instructions to each witness, which states

“[y]ou are about to be shown a group of individuals who may or may not have been involved in a Criminal Act under Investigation Please look carefully at each person If you can identify the person who committed the Criminal Act, please circle the appropriate number below to indicate the person you have identified Do not feel obligated to choose any particular photograph unless you are certain about your identification ”

‘5 Detective Jules advised each witness the Defendant may or may not be pictured in the photo

array and that the witness is not obligated to pick someone Both witnesses, separately, examined

their respective photo array and selected the picture of Richardson in each array The Court

recognized the witnesses promptly identified Richardson as the individual they saw in the house the

night of the incident

?6 At the crime scene, the witnesses reported that during the incident they saw Defendant and

another assailant in Christian 3 bedroom from another bedroom The witnesses also reported they

recognized Richardson as the person in the house by his braided hairstyle and his footwear, and they

also recognized Richardson from previous interactions with the deceased and recalled seeing

Richardson at a barbershop in Sunny Isles The witnesses also mentioned sharing a classroom with

3 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Kareem Richardson 2021 VI Super lO7U Case No SX 20 CR 317 Memorandum Opinion

Defendant 5 daughter and recalled interaction that occurred at the school between Defendant and

Christian

T7 According to Detective Jules testimony, both witnesses were shown additional, but different

photo arrays administered on November 6, 2020, identified as Defendant s exhibits 3, 5, and 6 Both

witnesses made identifications in those photo arrays, but it is unclear as to who was identified in those

arrays What is clear, however, is the identifications were not of Richardson, nor was he pictured in

Defendant’s exhibits 3, 5, or 6 The Court also recognized the contradictory reports from the

witnesses where one witness placed Richardson in a yellow sweater and the other assailant in all black

apparel, while the other witness placed Richardson in all black apparel and the other perpetrator in

the yellow sweater

1|8 Defendant Richardson testified that on the day of the incident, he cooked breakfast for his

children and later that morning between 1 1 00 a m and 12 00 p m , he went to Cost U Less

Defendant corroborated Detective Jules testimony and stated that on November 2, 2020, he went to

the police station and provided a statement to Detective Cruz about a picture of him, his girlfriend,

and his child circulating on social media identifying him as the person associated with the homicide

He returned to the station on the following day, and spoke with Detective Jules, who infomed him

that there was nothing the police could do at the time and for further assistance, Richardson would

need to file a police report Richardson continued he did not file a report and left the station He

further testified he knew the deceased from an interaction at school between their children and he

spoke with Christian letting him know that if problems persist, he intends to contact the school and 4 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Kareem Richardson 2021 VI Super 107U Case No SX 20 CR 317 Memorandum Opinion

request a parental conference Richardson scheduled a parental conference at the school but testified

no children were present at that time Defendant also testified he has never been to a barbershop in

Sunny Isle

119 Defendant requests suppression of his identification He asserts the pre trial identification

procedure was impermissiny suggestive because a picture of him affiliating him with the homicide

circulated on social media and likely influenced the witnesses prior to their identification of him in

the photo arrays He argues the spread of the picture created substantial likelihood that the witnesses

consciously or subconsciously selected him in photo arrays 1 and 2 Additionally, Richardson

contends the witnesses identifications of him are unreliable because neither witness identified the

face of the perpetrators at the house during the crime, and they either misidentified or did not select

a person in exhibits 3, 5, and 6 Further, one of the misidentifications was that of a deceased person,

hence the unreliability These three reasons, whether considered independently or in the totality, do

not create a substantial likelihood of the witnesses misidentifying Richardson because they were

familiar with Richardson prior to the homicide

II LEGAL DISCUSSION

A Standard for Analyzing a Motion to Suppress

1110 A pre trial identification procedure violates constitutional due process if the procedure is so

unnecessarily suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification Garcza

v Government ofthe Virgin Islands 48 V I 530 536 (D VI App Div 2006) (citing Nell v Biggers

409 U S 188 196 99 (1972)) Courts employ a two part test to determine whether an identification

5 People ofthe VIrgm Islands v Kareem chhardson 2021 VI Super 107U Case No SX 20 CR 317 Memorandum Opinion

procedure violates constitutional due process Richards v People ofthe Vzrgm Islands, 53 V I 379,

387 (V I 2010) First, the court must determine whether the identification procedure was

unnecessarily suggestive Richards, at 387 If the procedure was not unnecessarily suggestive, the

inquiry ends there However, if it was unnecessarily suggestive, the court then decides whether the

identification that occurred was reliable despite the suggestive procedure Id The court examines the

totality of the circumstances to determine whether it was so suggestive as to give rise to a substantial

likelihood of misidentification Potter v People of the VI 56 VI 779 789 (VI 2012) When

evaluating the totality of the circumstances, courts consider factors such as (l ) the opportunity of

the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2 ) the witness' degree of attention; (3 ) the

accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by

the witness at the [identification], (5 ) and the length of time between the crime and the

[identification] People ofthe VI v Boyce No SX 13 CR 092 2014 VI LEXIS 84 at *4 5 (Super

Ct Oct 6 2014) (quoting Bigger: at 199 200)

B The Pre-Trial Identification Procedure was Not Impermissibly or Unduly Suggestive

1|11 Based upon the testimony provided, the Court does not find photo array number 1 or photo

array number 2 impermissiny 0r unduly suggestive Neither does the Court find anything

impermissible or unnecessarily suggestive about Detective Jules’ manner of administering the photo

selection process Moreover, the photo array depicted six (6) African American men with similar

facial features, skin complexion and hairstyle, irrespective of whether the hair was braided or

6 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Kareem Richardson 2021 VI Super 107U Case No SX 20 CR 317 Memorandum Opinion

dreadlocked hair The Court finds both witnesses confidently and promptly identified Richardson

from the arrays and each witness signed their name and dated the selected photograph

1|12 Richardson argues the witnesses’ “misidentifications in photo array numbers 3, 5, and 6 is

evidence of the People’s pre trial identification procedures being unduly suggestive Richardson cites

Umred States v Foppe, 993 F 2d 1444 1450 (9th Cir 1993) to support this assertion However

contrary to Defendant’s belief, this ( ourt’s decision is in line with Foppe In Foppe, the court held

the in court identification was properly admitted because the witness’ courtroom identification

“rested on an independent recollection” of the defendant and did not stem from a violation of the

defendant’s fourth amendment rights Here, the witnesses recognized Richardson from previous

interactions while they were in the presence of Christian and saw Richardson at a barbershop in Sunny

Isles Moreover, both witnesses identified Defendant as one of the men in the house in each photo

array that depicted him Additionally, there is no evidence in the record or elicited from testimony to

confirm that the witnesses saw a photo of the Defendant on social media after the homicide and were

likely influenced to make the identification in the following days

1113 In sum, the pre trial identification procedure was not impermissiny or unduly suggestive

because of the witnesses independent recollection of Richardson and the pre trial identification

procedure was not performed in a biased or unnecessarily suggestive manner Any contradictory

testimony, such as the outfit Richardson was wearing when the witnesses saw him in Christian’s room

goes to the credibility of the witness and not the suggestiveness of the pre trial identification

7 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Kareem Richardson 2021 VI Super lO7U Case No SX 20 CR 317 Memorandum Opinion

C Even If the Pre Trial Identification Procedure was Impermissibly or Unduly Suggestive, the Totality of the Circumstances Does Not Suggest a Substantial Likelihood of Misidentification

1114 Since the standard for impermissibility was not met, the Court does not need to evaluate the

totality of the circumstances However, even if the Court conducted this evaluation, there was no

evidence or testimony provided during the hearing suggesting a substantial likelihood of

misidentification The witnesses were interviewed by police hours after the incident with the memory

of the event still fresh in their minds The witnesses had the opportunity to view Richardson in

Christian 5 bedroom from the other room across the hall, despite having to hide for their own safety

The witnesses’ description of Defendant shows the witnesses were certain in their conclusion that

Richardson was in the house the night of the incident The witnesses also recognized Richardson as

the father of one of their classmates and referred to him by his nickname As mentioned, both

witnesses recognized Defendant from the braids and footgear The Court recognizes the witnesses

placed Richardson in different outfits but both witnesses identified Richardson from the photo array

almost instantly

$15 The opportunity of the witnesses to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witnesses’

degree of attention, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witnesses, and the three day period

between the crime and the identification all favor the reliability of the witnesses identification of

Defendant The photo arrays are not impermissiny or unduly suggestive, and even considering the

totality of the circumstances, the selection process still did not suggest substantial likelihood of

misidentification

8 People ofthe Virgin Islands v Kareem Richardson 2021 VI Super 107U Case No SX 20 CR 317 Memorandum Opinion

111 CONCLUSION

1H6 Based on the foregoing reasons, this Court finds the pre trial identification procedure

employed by Detective Jules sufficient and not impermissiny or unduly suggestive Furthermore,

even considering the totality ofthe circumstances, although not required, there has been no substantial

likelihood of misidentification The Court finds there was a proper identification Therefore, for the

aforementioned reasons, the Court will deny Defendant Kareem Richardson’s motion to suppress

identification evidence An appropriate order follows

/ / / Dated OctoberQZQ 2021 ( Ll / / ‘4 M ‘1]! ‘4 R e I umbs a ATTEST Judge of I e Superio Tamara Charles of the ' irgin Isla - Clerk of the Court

By 2‘%% m Latoya a cho CourtC 1' Supervisor /[ IZM

9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No SX 20 CR 317 vs ) ) KAREEM RICHARDSON ) Cite as 2021 VI Super 107U ) Defendant ) ) ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant s Motion to Suppress Identification

Evidence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing with Points and Authority, filed on July 2, 2021

The People of the Virgin Islands (the People”) filed their opposition on August 2, 2021, and a

suppression hearing was held on September 24, 2021 For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum

Opinion of even date, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendant Kareem Richardson 5 Motion to Suppress Identification

Evidence is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be directed to Assistant Attorney General Amie

M Simpson Esquire and Martial A Webst , r , Esqu

/ t l l I Dated October 2021 \\ ‘I'I ‘ Rene umbs Car ATTEST Ju e of Superior Co I Tamara Charles of the irgin Islands Clerk 0 the Court

By Latoya acho Court C erk Supervisor [1/2][OZ/