James Richardson v. Joyce Kornegay, 3 F.4th 687

In June 2009 a drive-by shooting outside a Greenville, NC nightclub killed two people; physical evidence linked a white BMW and Hi-Point .45 ammunition to James Richardson. Richardson later surrendered and was tried for two counts of first-degree murder and related firearm offenses.
The defense centered on identity: several witnesses identified the shooter as wearing a white shirt; one eyewitness (Vidal Thorpe) positively identified Richardson. The defense sought to present Dr. Lori Van Wallendael, an eyewitness-identification expert, to challenge reliability of identifications.
The trial court excluded the expert under N.C. R. Evid. 403 after finding she had not interviewed key witnesses and had not heard all in-court testimony; Richardson was convicted and sentenced to consecutive life terms.
On state post-conviction review Richardson argued (1) exclusion of the expert violated his right to present a defense, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure admissibility, and (3) juror racial animus affected the verdict. The state court denied relief, finding the ineffective-assistance claim procedurally barred and rejecting the juror-impeachment evidence under North Carolina’s no-impeachment rule pre-Pena-Rodriguez.
Richardson sought federal habeas relief raising the same three issues; the district court granted summary judgment for the State. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, applying AEDPA deference and Teague retroactivity limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of eyewitness-identification expert violated due process/right to present a defense	Excluding Dr. Van Wallendael deprived Richardson of a meaningful opportunity to present evidence undermining eyewitness IDs	Trial court properly exercised Rule 403 discretion because expert had not interviewed or observed key witnesses and risked confusing/prejudicing the jury	Denied—state court reasonably applied Rule 403; exclusion did not violate clearly established federal law under AEDPA
Ineffective assistance for failing to secure admissibility of expert testimony	Counsel was deficient in preparation and failed to ensure the expert satisfied prerequisites to testify	Claim was not raised on direct appeal and is procedurally defaulted under N.C. law; no cause and prejudice shown	Denied as procedurally barred; habeas court will not reach merits (even if reached, overwhelming evidence of guilt undermines prejudice)
Juror racial animus (Pena‑Rodriguez)	Juror affidavit (Anderson) shows racial hostility during deliberations and requires relief under Pena‑Rodriguez	State post-conviction court correctly applied then-governing no-impeachment rule; Pena‑Rodriguez was not "clearly established" at that time and Teague bars retroactive application	Denied—state court adjudicated claim on the merits and reasonably applied existing law; Pena‑Rodriguez was not clearly established then and is not retroactively applicable

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (right to present a defense subject to evidentiary rules; Rule 403 exclusions permissible)
Scheffer v. United States, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (rulemakers may exclude evidence even when probative)
Pena‑Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) (constitutional exception to no-impeachment rule for juror statements showing reliance on racial bias)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (new procedural rules generally do not apply retroactively on collateral review)
Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018) ("look-through" principle for §2254(d) review of state-court reasoning)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA requires highly deferential, objectively unreasonable standard)
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007) (no evidentiary hearing required where record precludes habeas relief)
Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40 (2014) (Sixth Amendment does not require exception to no-impeachment rule for juror voir dire dishonesty)
Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987) (no-impeachment rule bars juror testimony about others’ intoxication during trial)