NEWMAN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 3:16-cv-03396

Shortly after midnight on August 3, 2008, Samuel Epright was shot in the thigh during an attempted robbery and later identified Mike Newman as the shooter.
Police found a single‑barrel shotgun in a shed near Epright’s home and various witnesses placed Newman near the scene earlier that night wearing a hunting belt/vest with shotgun shells.
Newman was arrested, tried by jury, and convicted of robbery, attempted murder, and related offenses; he received a lengthy sentence.
Newman pursued direct appeal and post‑conviction relief (PCR) in New Jersey state courts; those courts rejected his claims.
Newman filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising five main claims: suppression of photo identification, admission of prior bad acts evidence, excessive sentence, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and denial of an evidentiary hearing in PCR.
The District Court denied the petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability, finding the state courts’ rulings were reasonable under AEDPA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Photo identification suppression	DMV single photo was unduly suggestive and should have been suppressed	Witness had already identified Newman by name before seeing photo; showing single photo only confirmed that ID	Denied — ID was not impermissibly suggestive; state courts reasonably applied law
Admission of prior bad acts evidence	Trial court erred by allowing testimony referencing prior theft/incarceration	References were minimal, resulted from defense counsel’s questions, and limiting instruction given	Denied — no due process violation; not so unfair as to deny trial fairness
Excessive sentence	Sentence was manifestly excessive	Claim rests on state law; no federal constitutional infirmity shown under Eighth Amendment	Denied — federal habeas does not review state‑law sentencing errors; no Eighth Amendment violation shown
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Multiple alleged omissions (no experts, subpoena failures, juror handling, cross‑racial instruction, poor communication)	PCR record shows no Strickland deficiency or prejudice; appellate courts affirmed PCR denial	Denied — state courts’ Strickland application was reasonable; petitioner failed to rebut presumption of correctness
Denial of evidentiary hearing in PCR	PCR court should have held an evidentiary hearing	Errors in collateral PCR proceedings are not cognizable on federal habeas	Denied — collateral proceeding errors are not a basis for habeas relief

Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (photo identification due process analysis)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA unreasonable application framework)
Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (state factual findings review)
Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (presumption of correctness of state factual findings)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (Eighth Amendment sentencing principles)
Burgos‑Cintron v. Nyekan, [citation="510 F. App'x 157"] (3d Cir.) (single photo confirmation where witness previously identified suspect)
Woods v. Etherton, 136 S. Ct. 1149 (doubly deferential AEDPA review for ineffective‑assistance claims)