Whether petitioner's jury was adequately 'warn[ed] to take care in appraising identification evidence,' in accordance with due process, where his jury was not instructed that a suggestive identification procedure may undermine an eyewitness identification

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW At petitioner’s Hobbs Act robberies trial, petitioner was identified as a robbery suspect by an eyewitness who had been subjected by police to a suggestive identification procedure. Petitioner requested the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ pattern eyewitness identification instruction, which—unlike the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ pattern identification suggestiveness. Instead, the district court read the Eleventh Circuit’s pattern instruction, which provides only that the jury “may [] consider the circumstances of the identification of the Defendant, such as the way the Defendant was presented to the witness for identification.” The question presented for review is: Whether petitioner’s jury was adequately “warn[ed] to take care in appraising identification evidence,” in accordance with due process, where his jury was not instructed that a suggestive identification procedure may undermine an eyewitness identification. See Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, 245-46 (2012). i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no