Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. The viewing of the photographs by the three complainants in the same room was not unduly suggestive, since the complainants were seated six feet apart, viewed over 2,000 photos separately and did not confer with one another upon identifying photos of defendant. There is no evidence that any complainant saw which picture any other complainant identified (see, People v Magee,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
