John Schroeder v. Jeff Premo
712 F. App'x 634
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Schroeder appealed denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging convictions for first-degree attempted rape and first-degree burglary; AEDPA governs review.
- The only reasoned state-court opinion on Schroeder’s first three claims was the trial court’s decision; Ninth Circuit reviewed that opinion under AEDPA standards.
- Schroeder sought a change of venue based on pretrial publicity, challenged eyewitness identifications by victim L.B. as the product of suggestive procedures, and sought funds plus admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identification.
- The trial court admitted L.B.’s in-court and photo-lineup identifications, excluded the defense expert under Oregon precedent limiting expert identification testimony, and denied funding for such an expert.
- The district court denied habeas relief; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the state-court decisions were not contrary to or unreasonable applications of clearly established federal law nor unreasonable determinations of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change of venue for prejudicial pretrial publicity | Pretrial publicity created presumed or actual prejudice preventing fair jury | Press coverage was largely factual, not pervasive or inflammatory; no record shows juror prejudice | Denial of change of venue was reasonable; no presumed or actual prejudice proved |
| Admissibility of eyewitness IDs (Due Process) | IDs were tainted by suggestive procedures (newspaper photo, TV clip, prior clothing lineup) | Only police-created suggestiveness triggers Due Process reliability review; here police did not cause the media exposure and the clothing-shirt claim is factually incorrect | IDs admissible; no police-created impermissibly suggestive procedure, so no Biggers reliability suppression required |
| Exclusion of defense expert testimony on eyewitness ID | Excluding expert and denying funds violated right to present a defense and due process | Oregon precedent bars such expert testimony; Constitution does not compel funding/appointment of this type of expert | Exclusion and denial of funds were not contrary to clearly established federal law; no entitlement to such expert funds shown |
| Cumulative error claim | Combined alleged errors rendered trial unfair | No individual constitutional errors were established to cumulate | Habeas relief denied; no cumulative constitutional error |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (AEDPA governs petitions filed after specified date)
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (fair trial by impartial jury standard)
- Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (presumed vs. actual prejudice from publicity)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (Due Process triggered only by police-created suggestiveness)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (factors for assessing reliability of identification)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (reliability as linchpin for admissibility)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (right to present a defense limits on excluding evidence)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (limits on right to present evidence)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (entitlement to certain experts 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 (analysis of cumulative error)
- Van Lynn v. Farmon, 347 F.3d 735 (use trial court opinion when it is only reasoned state-court decision)