MICHAEL SEXTON v. NICHOLAS BEAUDREAUX
Supreme Court of the United States, Per Curiam, June 28, 2018,
Federal Habeas Corpus (AEDPA) – AEDPA did not allow a state conviction to be overturned by federal courts on the basis of witness identification where it was not unreasonable for the courts to believe that the identification was reliable
The Ninth Circuit’s opinion was not just wrong. It also committed fundamental errors that this Court has repeatedly admonished courts to avoid.
YANCSD – Yet Another Ninth-Circuit Smackdown
Facts:
In 2006, Dayo Esho and Brandon Crowder observed a shooting in California.
Crowder told police that he knew the shooter from middle school, but did not know the shooter’s name.
Crowder was arrested seventeen months later and shown a middle-school yearbook with Beaudreaux’s picture as well as a photo lineup including Beaudreaux. Crowder identified Beaudreaux as the shooter.
The next day, officers interviewed Esho. They showed Esho a lineup including Beaudreaux, but Esho only said that Beaudreaux’s picture was “closest” to the shooter. Later that day, Esho was shown another photo lineup containing a picture of Beaudreaux. This photo was taken closer to the time of the shooting. Esho said that it was “very close,” but didn’t identify Beaudreaux as the shooter because there were “a few things” that he needed to see in person before he could be sure it was him.
Beaudreaux was charged with the murder.
At a preliminary hearing, Esho identified Beaudreaux as the shooter. He explained that it “clicked” when he saw Beaudreaux in person based on “the way that he walked.” Esho testified that he was now “sure” that Beaudreaux was the shooter.
Beaudreaux was tried and convicted of the murder.
In 2013, Beaudreaux filed a post-conviction claiming that his attorney was ineffective for failing to challenge Esho’s identification as impermissibly suggestive.
This post-conviction was denied. Beaudreaux appealed, but California courts upheld the denial.
Beaudreaux then requested review by the U.S. Court for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed the state courts, finding that both the photo array and the preliminary hearing were unduly suggestive and the identification was unreliable. It also found Beaudreaux’s attorney ineffective for not challenging the identification and reversed the conviction.
The State of California sought review from the Supreme Court.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit overstepped its authority in reversing the state court conviction.
Identification – Due process protects a defendant against the use of an out-of-court identification that is both suggestive and unnecessary
Identification – An identification is improperly suggestive if there is a “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification” based on the procedure
Photo Array – Suggestiveness – Repeating Photos – Repeated inclusion of a suspect in more than one photo array shown to the same witness is suggestive if the repetition signals to the witness who he or she should select
Photo Array – Suggestiveness – Repeating Photos – An array is not automatically suggestive just because it includes a photo of the suspect that the witness has already seen.
Note: Other factors may come into play for a repeated photo, such as: how long was it since the witness was shown the first photo? how memorable is the photo? were any other photos repeated? was attention drawn to the repeated photo?
Practice Note: If a repeat array is needed that will include one or more of the same people, avoid: using the same or similar picture in both arrays, showing the arrays the same day, or drawing attention to the fact that the same person appears more than once.
Identification – Reliability – Even if a pre-trial identification procedure is improperly suggestive, the identification may still be reliable enough to be used as evidence in court.
Identification – Reliability- The reliability of an identification depends on the facts of the case. Certain factors may be considered in determining whether an ID is reliable, such as:
– the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime
– the witness’ degree of attention at the time of the crime
– the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal
– the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the time of the identification
– the length of time between the crime and the identification
From the Case: “True, Esho gave a vague initial description of the shooter, and there was a 17-month delay between the shooting and the identification. But, as the District Court found, Esho had a good opportunity to view the shooter, having talked to Beaudreaux immediately after the shooting. He also was paying attention during the crime and even remembered Beaudreaux’s distinctive walk. Esho demonstrated a high overall level of certainty in his identification. He chose Beaudreaux’s picture in both photo lineups, and he was ‘sure’ about his identification once he saw Beaudreaux in person. There also was ‘little pressure’ on Esho to make a particular identification.”
Right to Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – The 6th Amendment gives defendants the right to an attorney. However, an attorney who fails to meet minimum standards of competence is not the “counsel” guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) – To claim that an attorney was constitutionally deficient, a defendant must meet the “Strickland Test”:
1) The defendant must show that the attorney’s performance was constitutionally deficient
2) The defendant must show that he was prejudiced by this deficiency (that the attorney’s poor performance made the trial unreliable)
Federal Review of State Decisions – The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) allows a federal court to grant a prisoner relief if his sentence was based on “a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by” the Supreme Court or “a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
Federal Review of State Decisions – Under the AEDPA, a federal court must not overturn a conviction or sentence by a state court unless there is no possibility that a reasonable court could arrive at that conclusion in light of federal law or the evidence presented.
From the Case: “The Ninth Circuit’s opinion was not just wrong. It also committed fundamental errors that this Court has repeatedly admonished” federal courts to avoid when reviewing state convictions.