United States v. Radaker-Carter: Sixth Circuit Resolves the Standard-of-Review Split in Pre-trial Identification Suppression Motions

1. Introduction

In United States v. Kyrrah Cornell Radaker-Carter, No. 24-1744 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2025), the Sixth Circuit confronted a familiar due-process challenge to eyewitness-identification evidence. Although the court ultimately affirmed the district court’s refusal to suppress the identification, the precedential importance of the opinion lies elsewhere: the panel, speaking through Judge Ritz, formally resolved an intra-circuit conflict over the proper appellate standard of review for suppression motions aimed at pre-trial identifications.

Prior Sixth Circuit cases vacillated between treating the entire issue as a matter of clear-error review and applying a mixed standard—clear error for factual findings and de novo for legal conclusions. The Radaker-Carter opinion adopts the mixed approach, bringing the circuit into alignment with both Supreme Court authority and the analytical structure used for other constitutional-suppression questions.

Beyond the standard-of-review clarification, the court reaffirmed two substantive principles:

Due process scrutiny of eyewitness identifications is triggered only when suggestive circumstances are created or arranged by state actors.
A photo array that merely contains minor background or lighting differences, without more, is not “unduly suggestive.”

2. Summary of the Judgment

The panel unanimously affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress the out-of-court identification made by the victim (E.J.). Key holdings include:

Standard of Review: Appellate courts must review factual findings for clear error, but must review de novo whether police conduct was “unnecessarily suggestive” and whether the identification was otherwise reliable.
No State-Arranged Suggestion: Because the witness saw the defendant’s Facebook photo from a private acquaintance—not from the police—due process did not mandate suppression under Perry v. New Hampshire.
Photo Array Not Unduly Suggestive: Variations in background hue, lighting, and photo placement in a six-pack lineup did not single out the defendant or create a substantial likelihood of misidentification.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) – Provided the foundational two-step inquiry (suggestiveness + reliability) for eyewitness challenges.
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) – Emphasized that suppression is an “extraordinary remedy” justified only when suggestiveness outweighs reliability.
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) – Limited due-process exclusion to police-arranged suggestion; heavily relied on by both district court and panel.
Sexton v. Beaudreaux, 585 U.S. 961 (2018) – Reiterated Biggers’ “very substantial likelihood” test; cited to evaluate risk of misidentification.
Marks (2000) & Crozier (2001) – Early Sixth Circuit cases applying a mixed standard of review.
Beverly (2004) & Washington (2013) – Later cases applying unitary clear-error review; the panel rejected their approach in light of circuit rules on inter-panel conflict.
Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. 68 (2020) – Supreme Court’s articulation that legal questions are ordinarily reviewed de novo; used to support the mixed approach.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Inter-panel Precedence and Rule 32.1(b)
The panel invoked the “earlier-case prevails” doctrine: because Marks (2000) and Crozier (2001) pre-dated Beverly, their mixed-review framework controls unless an en banc decision states otherwise.
Consistency with Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Citing Monasky and Highmark, the opinion noted that appellate courts must independently decide constitutional legal questions to maintain national doctrinal uniformity.
Application to the Facts
a. No State Action: Because the witness’s prior exposure to the defendant’s photo was wholly private, it fell outside due-process scrutiny.
b. Photo Array Evaluation: Minor imperfections (different backdrop, lighting, and mid-grid placement) did not impermissibly highlight the defendant.
c. Reliability Not Reached: Having found no undue suggestiveness, the court deemed a reliability analysis unnecessary.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

Standard-Setting Effect
Appellate litigants and district judges in the Sixth Circuit now have definitive guidance: suppression rulings on eyewitness identifications must be dissected into factual and legal components, with only the former receiving deference.
Future Litigation Strategy
Defendants challenging identifications will likely invest more in building an evidentiary record of police involvement, knowing that purely private suggestiveness is virtually immune from suppression.
Doctrinal Alignment
The decision harmonizes the Sixth Circuit with other circuits (e.g., Second, Fifth, Ninth) that already employ a mixed standard, promoting national coherence.
Training & Police Practice
Investigators are reminded to avoid even inadvertent suggestiveness in arranging lineups; yet the opinion reassures them that they are not responsible for witnesses’ private conduct.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Unduly Suggestive: A lineup or identification procedure is “unduly suggestive” when it singles out the suspect in a way likely to steer the witness toward selecting that person (e.g., unique clothing, positional cues, verbal hints).
Clear-Error Review: An appellate court overturns a factual finding only if left with the “definite and firm conviction” that a mistake occurred—a highly deferential standard.
De novo Review: The appellate court gives no deference to the trial court’s legal conclusions; it decides the issue fresh, as though it were the first court to consider it.
State Action Requirement: The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause constrains only governmental conduct. If the suggestiveness originates solely from private actors, the constitutional claim fails.
Two-Step Eyewitness Inquiry: Step 1: Was the procedure both suggestive and unnecessary?
Step 2: If yes, was the identification nevertheless reliable under factors like witness perception, accuracy of prior description, certainty, and elapsed time?

5. Conclusion

United States v. Radaker-Carter offers two principal contributions to Sixth Circuit jurisprudence:

It expressly adopts a mixed standard of appellate review—clear error for fact-finding, de novo for legal determinations—in the context of suppression motions aimed at pre-trial identifications.
It reiterates and applies Perry v. New Hampshire’s rule that only police-engineered suggestiveness implicates due-process exclusion, while confirming that modest variations in photo arrays rarely rise to constitutional dimensions.

These clarifications will streamline appellate briefing, guide district courts in crafting meticulous findings of fact and conclusions of law, and enhance predictability for law-enforcement agencies constructing photo lineups. More broadly, by aligning its review structure with Supreme Court precedent, the Sixth Circuit fortifies the uniform application of constitutional suppression doctrine across the federal judiciary.