Kenyatta Erkins v. Rick Chuvalas
684 F. App'x 493
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kenyatta Erkins was convicted in Ohio state court for a series of casino-related robberies; this habeas appeal followed denial of his federal petition.
- Victim Michael Weisbrod was robbed twice; the first robbery has video evidence and a co-perpetrator (Amy Hoover) who confessed; the second robbery relied principally on Weisbrod’s identification.
- Six months after the second robbery, Weisbrod saw news reports and later, two weeks before trial, the prosecutor showed him single photographs of Erkins and co-defendants and told him those were the people on trial; Weisbrod then identified Erkins at trial via live videoconference from Canada.
- At sentencing/trial the judge announced findings (naming conspiracy) that did not match the written journal entry (which listed aggravated robbery); the judge later amended the journal to reflect complicity to robbery and explained the change as correcting a clerical/error in naming the statute.
- The district court denied Erkins’s habeas petition; a certificate of appealability (COA) was issued on (1) whether the photo shown by the prosecutor was impermissibly suggestive rendering the in-court ID unreliable, and (2) whether the trial court violated due process by amending its journalized finding; Erkins also sought to expand the COA to include a Sixth Amendment claim challenging Weisbrod’s videoconference testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s single-photo display to Weisbrod was impermissibly suggestive and rendered in-court ID unreliable | Erkins: single-photo display two years after crime was unduly suggestive and, under Biggers factors, ID was unreliable | State: Ohio courts found ID reliable based on Weisbrod’s opportunity to view and prior recognition from news reports | Court: Photo display was unnecessarily suggestive but, under AEDPA reasonableness review, Ohio courts’ reliability finding was not objectively unreasonable — habeas denied |
| Whether trial court’s amendment of journalized finding violated due process or double jeopardy | Erkins: court initially announced guilt for offenses not charged and later amended journal, violating rights and raising double jeopardy concerns | State: Amendment corrected a clerical mistake to reflect the court’s intended finding (complicity to robbery) and was permissible under state law | Court: Amendment was a correction of an inadvertent/journal clerical error consistent with the judge’s stated intent; no due process or double jeopardy violation |
| Whether admitting Weisbrod’s videoconference testimony violated Sixth Amendment confrontation right | Erkins: Videoconference testimony deprived him of face-to-face confrontation; trial court made no case-specific finding of necessity as required by Craig | State: (Respondent did not meaningfully contest); trial counsel did not object at trial | Court: Claim was procedurally defaulted; assuming counsel’s failure to object was deficient, Erkins failed to show Strickland prejudice because substantial circumstantial evidence (MO and prior robbery of same victim) could sustain conviction; defaulted claim not excused |
| Whether counsel’s failure to object to videoconference testimony excuses procedural default (ineffective assistance) | Erkins: Trial/appellate counsel were ineffective for not objecting, so cause exists to review the Confrontation claim | State: Must show both deficiency and prejudice under Strickland; petitioner did not demonstrate prejudice | Held: Court assumed deficiency but found no reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the testimony; Strickland prejudice not shown, so default stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (reliability factors for eyewitness ID)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (reliability as linchpin for admissibility of suggestive IDs)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (single-photograph ID creates risk of misidentification)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (face-to-face confrontation requirement; case-specific finding of necessity)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance—deficiency and prejudice standards)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default and exceptions)
- Howard v. Bouchard, 405 F.3d 459 (AEDPA standard and habeas review of state-court decisions)
- Gall v. Parker, 231 F.3d 265 (standard for "fundamental miscarriage of justice" in habeas context)