John David Wurdemann v. State, 161 Idaho 713

Background

In 2002 John David Wurdemann was convicted of seven felonies for the June 2000 attack on Linda LeBrane; direct appeal denied and initial post-conviction relief denied.
While a post-conviction appeal was pending, Wurdemann filed an I.R.C.P. 60(b) motion; the district court granted it and held a new evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel.
The district court vacated Wurdemann’s convictions, finding trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly challenge eyewitness identification evidence (a suggestive video lineup).
The State appealed both the 60(b) grant and the ineffective-assistance ruling. The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s challenge to the 60(b) order as untimely.
On the merits, the Court held the video lineup was impermissibly suggestive and, under the Manson-Biggers factors, the identification lacked sufficient reliability to overcome the suggestiveness.
The Court found trial counsel’s failure to file a suppression motion or renew an objection at trial resulted from inadequate preparation/ignorance of controlling law, constituting deficient performance and a Sixth Amendment violation; post-conviction relief affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Wurdemann's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s grant of I.R.C.P. 60(b) was appealable/timely	N/A (motion granted; sought further proceedings)	The State argues the 60(b) grant was erroneous	The Court dismissed the State’s challenge as untimely and affirmed the 60(b) grant (State failed to file notice within 42 days)
Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for not moving to suppress/otherwise challenging the video lineup	Counsel’s failure to move to suppress and to consult an eyewitness-identification expert was deficient and prejudicial	Counsel’s conduct was reasonable; no deficient performance shown	Court held counsel’s failure was deficient: the lineup was blatantly suggestive and counsel demonstrated inadequate preparation/ignorance of law; prejudice assumed (State did not contest prejudice)
Whether the video lineup was impermissibly suggestive and identification unreliable	The lineup matched witness description only in the defendant, creating undue suggestiveness; reliability factors defeat admissibility	The identification was reliable enough and admissible	Court held the lineup was impermissibly suggestive and, under the Manson-Biggers factors (viewing conditions, attention, description accuracy, certainty, time lapse), reliability did not outweigh suggestiveness; suppression would likely have been granted
Whether counsel’s decision not to file a suppression motion could be reasonable trial strategy	N/A (argues in favor of relief)	Decision may have been strategic, within wide range of reasonable professional judgment	Court found no record of a tactical reason; given prevailing law at trial, decision reflected inadequate preparation/ignorance, not reasonable strategy

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (reliability as linchpin for admissibility of identification)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (totality of circumstances test for eyewitness ID)
State v. Hoisington, 104 Idaho 153 (applying Manson/Biggers in Idaho; reliability factors)
State v. Trevino, 132 Idaho 888 (due-process exclusion when suggestiveness creates substantial risk of misidentification)