We made significant progress in our quest to obtain justice for our client, Easton Shelvin, Jr. Easton has been falsely accused of a homicide that occurred in Opelousas on October 22, 2022. He has been charged with Second Degree Murder.
In June 2024, after an all-day hearing, the Honorable Judge Charles Cravins granted our Motion to Suppress Evidence of Identification. The victim’s girlfriend was at the scene when he was shot. However, she did not see the shooter because the vehicle the shooter was in had dark tinted windows. However, she claimed that her and her boyfriend met a man at a gas station in Lafayette a few days before the homicide. She claimed that the man was driving the same car as the one the shooter was in on October 22nd.
The Opelousas Police Department created three (3) photo lineups and presented them to her. The prospective witness did not positively identify anyone as the man they met at the gas station in Lafayette. However, after looking at the lineup that contained a photo of Easton three (3) times, she finally selected our client as the “one that looked most familiar” to her.
Our position was that the identification process utilized was flawed from its inception. One example, right before the witness was presented with the lineups one of the detectives told her: “This is going to be the man you remember seeing at the gas station.” As Judge Cravins correctly ruled, this was overly suggestive. The proper procedure is for the police officer to tell the witness that the person you saw may, or may not, be in the lineup. The objective is to avoid placing undue pressure on the witness to make a selection.
The witness also pointed to a picture in the 3rd photo lineup. She said that man “looked familiar.” However, the detective did not have her circle and initial that photo as he had her do for Easton’s photo. Likewise, he did not mention in his report that this line up was presented to the witness and that she had made a selection.
Judge Cravins courageously ruled, after consideration of all of the circumstances, that the conduct of the Opelousas Police Department was unduly suggestive. This suggestiveness presented a substantial likelihood of misidentification by the witness.
As a result, if this woman actually testifies at our trial, she (along with all of the other witnesses) will be prohibited from making any reference to her ‘identification” of Easton Shelvin, Jr
