John Schroeder v. Jeff Premo
712 F. App'x 638
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Schroeder was convicted in Oregon of first-degree sodomy and first-degree burglary; he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his convictions.
- AEDPA governs review because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996; federal habeas relief is limited to (1) contrary/unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or (2) unreasonable factual determinations.
- Schroeder raised four principal constitutional claims: denial of change of venue due to pretrial publicity; admission of eyewitness identifications as the product of suggestive procedures; denial of funds and exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification; and cumulative error.
- The district court denied habeas relief; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the record (including voir dire and press coverage) and Oregon appellate decisions under AEDPA deference.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded Schroeder failed to show presumed or actual prejudice from publicity, that the identifications were admissible under Neil/Biggers/Manson despite some suggestive police conduct, that exclusion/funding rulings on expert evidence were not unreasonable under clearly established law, and that no cumulative constitutional error existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change of venue for prejudicial pretrial publicity | Pretrial publicity so pervasive/inflammatory that fair trial by impartial jury was impossible | Press coverage was largely factual; voir dire showed no seated juror bias | Denial of change of venue upheld; no presumed or actual prejudice shown |
| Admissibility of eyewitness IDs (E.C. and L.B.) | IDs resulted from impermissibly suggestive photographic procedures and should be suppressed | Even where procedure was suggestive, Biggers factors show reliability; some procedures were not suggestive | IDs admissible; Oregon court’s reliability determination was a reasonable application of federal law |
| Expert on eyewitness ID: funding and exclusion of testimony | Trial court erred by denying funds for defense expert and excluding proffered expert testimony on ID reliability | Oregon precedent permits exclusion; no clearly established federal right to such an expert/funding under AEDPA standard | Denial of funds and exclusion of expert testimony not contrary to or unreasonable application of clearly established federal law |
| Cumulative error | Combined trial errors deprived Schroeder of fair trial | No individual constitutional errors proved, so cumulative-error claim fails | Rejected—no basis for cumulative-error reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (prejudice from pretrial publicity standard)
- Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (presumed vs. actual prejudice inquiry)
- Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (AEDPA applicability)
- Murray v. Schriro, 746 F.3d 418 (independent review of publicity/record on habeas)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (two-step analysis for suggestive ID procedures)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (factors for assessing reliability of identifications)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (reliability as admissibility linchpin)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (right to present a defense)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (limits on right to present evidence)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (constitutional entitlement to certain expert assistance for indigent defendants)
- Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882 (no constitutional right to eyewitness-ID expert/funding)
- Rupe v. Wood, 93 F.3d 1434 (cumulative-error framework)