Antonio McDowell v. Michael Lemke
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24735
7th Cir.2013Background
- On December 21, 1996, Mario Castro was shot and killed during a carjacking; several eyewitnesses saw a man in black who later was identified as Antonio McDowell.
- Detective Renaldo Guevara investigated; in July 1997 witnesses viewed a photo book and a five-photo array and identified McDowell; subsequent live lineups produced identifications as well.
- McDowell moved to suppress identification testimony pretrial claiming suggestive single-photo showups and flawed photo arrays; the record does not show a ruling on that motion and he did not press the issue at trial.
- McDowell was convicted at a bench trial of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated vehicular hijacking and sentenced to 103 years; direct appeal challenged sentencing issues only.
- In state post-conviction proceedings McDowell alleged identifications were tainted and that Detective Guevara had a history of coercive misconduct; the state courts rejected ineffective-assistance claims and denied relief.
- In federal habeas proceedings McDowell argued due-process violations from unduly suggestive identifications and actual innocence based on affidavits alleging Guevara framed him; the district court found procedural default for many claims and rejected actual-innocence evidence; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether identification procedures (photo arrays/showups) were unduly suggestive and violated Due Process | McDowell: police used suggestive procedures (single-photo showup; mixed-race/only-common photo across arrays) that tainted eyewitness IDs | State: arrays were not suggestive; identifications were supported by record and multiple witnesses; claims were forfeited or procedurally defaulted | Court: Claims procedurally defaulted because McDowell failed to fairly present federal constitutional identification claims to each level of Illinois courts; no merits relief granted |
| Whether McDowell fairly presented due-process ID claims to state courts (exhaustion/fair-presentation) | McDowell: post-conviction filings put state courts on notice of suggestiveness and constitutional problem | State: petitioner did not adequately frame federal constitutional law or supporting facts at each state level | Held: single sentence in pro se petition insufficient to fairly present federal claim; appellate court’s brief factual remark did not show merits consideration of federal due-process issue |
| Whether McDowell established actual innocence to excuse procedural default (miscarriage of justice exception) | McDowell: affidavit asserting Detective Guevara framed him and collateral evidence of Guevara’s misconduct in other cases shows likely false IDs | State: evidence is self-serving and collateral; does not definitively prove innocence in this case | Held: evidence insufficient under Schlup; self-serving affidavit and impeachment evidence about Guevara in other cases do not meet the high bar for actual innocence |
| Whether district court erred in procedural-default analysis or in refusing to reach other defaulted claims | McDowell: district court improperly found default or failed to consider certain suggestiveness theories | State: district court discretion and rulings proper; some claims outside COA | Held: Seventh Circuit reviews de novo and affirms that claims are defaulted and declines to reach other defaulted claims outside certificate of appealability |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (sentencing and notice principles cited regarding direct-appeal sentencing challenge)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (state-court exhaustion requires presentation of claims to each level of state review)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual-innocence gateway to overcome procedural default requires new, reliable evidence showing it is more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict)
- Ward v. Jenkins, 613 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings liberally construed; examples of fair-presentation requirements)
- Kunz v. DeFelice, 538 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2008) (issue presentation to district court can be sufficient if court had first opportunity to rule)
- Pole v. Randolph, 750 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2014) (last state court decision addressing an issue on the merits precludes procedural default)
- Hayes v. Battaglia, 403 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2005) (examples of the type of “powerful” new evidence required to satisfy actual-innocence standard)