519 F. App'x 360
6th Cir.2013Background
- Howard was convicted in Ohio of attempted murder, aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, and weapon under disability after a two-man Beverage Oasis robbery.
- Donald Little identified Howard in a pretrial photo lineup and in court; Howard moved to suppress the identification as unduly suggestive and unreliable.
- Ohio Courts held the lineup was not unduly suggestive and that the identification was reliable under the totality of circumstances.
- Howard later challenged the state court ruling in habeas corpus, arguing the identification was unduly suggestive and improperly influenced by non-police factors.
- The district court rejected Perry-related arguments and denied relief; the district court granted a certificate of appealability only as to whether the identification procedure was unduly suggestive.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmatively held that the Ohio court’s determination was reasonable under AEDPA and Perry clarified the limitations on step-one analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the photo array was unduly suggestive under step one of the due-process test | Howard argues extrinsic factors show suggestiveness | Howard fails to show police-created suggests a design; third-party motives not in step one | No: Ohio court reasonably found no unduly suggestive design. |
| Whether Perry limits consideration of extrinsic factors to step two only | Howard urges extrinsic bias evidence should render lineup unduly suggestive | Perry confines due-process concerns to police conduct in step one | Yes: Perry limits step-one inquiry to police action; extrinsic factors not considered in step one. |
| Whether the Ohio court’s reliance on police conduct over extrinsic motives was reasonable under AEDPA | State court ignored extrinsic bias evidence | Reasonable under Perry and AEDPA; no unreasonable application | Reasonable under AEDPA; judgment affirmed. |
| Whether Perry is a new rule or reaffirmation for Williams rule purposes | Perry changes analysis of step-one scope | Perry clarifies existing framework; not a new rule | Perry is applied to sustain Ohio court’s outcome; AEDPA deference preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (limits due-process reliability review to police conduct; extrinsic motives not trigger for step-one)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (two-part framework for reliability under totality of circumstances)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (identification procedures must be unduly suggestive and reliable)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (describes identification reliability framework for due process)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA review limited to clearly established federal law at state-court finality)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (limited habeas relief when fairminded jurists could disagree on state court rationale)
- Peak v. Webb, 673 F.3d 465 (2012) (describes AEDPA review standard in Sixth Circuit)