Anthony Hicks

● Defense presented alibi witnesses but they were unable to account for defendant’s whereabouts from about 7:00-8:10 , the time in which the crime occurred.

• Eyewitness
• Forensic Evidence

• Fingerprint
• Hair

• Vague
• Valid (Excluded)

Analyst who conducted hair comparison stated that the hair at the crime scene was “consistent” with the defendant. Analyst testified that the latent print excluded the defendant.

• Cross Racial Identification
• Victim

• Lineup

Yes ● Suggestive lineup – Hicks was only very dark complected person in lineup ● Victim not told attacker might not be in line-up, and instead was told that a suspect had been detained for her to identify

Officer testified “I told her — there was someone in custody” when telling victim to come to police station to view line-up. Victim testified that police said “something to that effect” that they had a potential suspect, and that as a result she was “hoping that there would be someone” when she viewed the line-up.

Yes ● Discrepancies in description – facial hair – mustache, scarring above eyes, cleft chin; victim initially said would not necessarily be able to identify her attacker ● Initially uncertain

Victim said that Hicks “looked brighter and had a cleft in his chin” than the attacker, following the line-up. Police report noted that the victim appeared “hesitant for just a moment before she marked the witness identification form.” Victim testimony: “A: He fit the description. He was the man. Q: But you never saw his eyes, you never saw the mustache. A: Yes, I guess that’s correct.” “Q. Now when looking at the assailant, did you notice any scars above the eyes? A. No.” Defendant had such scars as well as a mustache, which the victim did not observe.