James Gunnells v. Larry Cartledge
669 F. App'x 165
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- James Gunnells filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the denial of relief by the district court; he appealed the denial.
- Central claim: the trial court improperly admitted a victim’s in-court identification of Gunnells without applying the Neil v. Biggers factors for suggestive identifications.
- Magistrate judge recommended denial; district court accepted the recommendation and denied relief on the merits.
- To appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition, Gunnells needed a certificate of appealability showing a substantial constitutional question.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court has held that Neil v. Biggers does not apply to in-court identifications and that cross-examination and argument are the remedies for alleged suggestiveness (State v. Lewis).
- The Fourth Circuit majority concluded the issue was whether Biggers applies to in-court IDs on federal habeas review, not whether the district court expressly weighed Biggers factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by failing to apply Neil v. Biggers when admitting an in-court identification | Gunnells: the court should have explicitly applied Biggers factors to determine admissibility | State: Biggers does not govern in-court identifications; South Carolina law treats cross-examination/argument as the remedy | Court: Biggers does not apply on federal habeas review where the state supreme court reasonably declined to extend it; denied COA and dismissed appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for evaluating reliability of out-of-court identifications)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for certificates of appealability)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (Sup. Ct.) (standards for appellate review of habeas claims)
- Green v. French, 143 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 1998) (earlier Fourth Circuit discussion on extending Supreme Court precedent)
- White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415 (Sup. Ct.) (state courts are not unreasonable for refusing to extend Supreme Court precedent)
- State v. Lewis, 609 S.E.2d 515 (S.C. 2005) (South Carolina holding that Biggers does not apply to in-court identifications)
- United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161 (4th Cir.) (example of a Fourth Circuit case that applied Biggers to an in-court ID on direct federal appeal)