Ricardo Sanders v. Vince Cullen
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20080
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- In December 1980 a two‑man robbery at a Bob’s Big Boy in Los Angeles left four dead; Ricardo Rene Sanders was arrested and convicted in 1982 of four counts of first‑degree murder and sentenced to death.
- The State’s case rested largely on four eyewitness identifications (Malloy, Rogoway, Robinson, Luna) plus testimony from informants and non‑eyewitnesses (Gilcrest, Givens, Mitchell, Woods); physical evidence was inconclusive.
- A lineup video from December 23, 1980 and in‑court identifications were central; some witness lineup cards were lost and later controversy arose about possible witness contact with jailhouse informants (notably Leslie White) years after the lineup.
- Post‑trial revelations of a Los Angeles jailhouse‑informant scandal produced testimony by White and others suggesting informant misconduct and possible prosecutor knowledge in related cases; Sanders alleged this tainted witness testimony and trial fairness.
- Sanders filed state and federal habeas petitions raising Mooney/Napue (use of false testimony), Brady (nondisclosure of impeachment/exculpatory evidence), Massiah (government‑elicited statements via informant), Trombetta/Youngblood (failure to preserve evidence), and ineffective assistance of counsel for not suppressing the lineup.
- The California Supreme Court summarily denied relief; the federal district court denied habeas and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, applying AEDPA review and concluding the state decisions were not contrary to or unreasonable applications of Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mooney/Napue — eyewitness perjury (Malloy, Rogoway, Robinson, Luna) | Sanders: witnesses gave materially false ID testimony or perjured testimony and prosecution knew or should have known | State: inconsistencies exist but not shown to be false or known false; strong corroborating ID (esp. Malloy); impeachment available at trial | Denied — petitioner failed to show testimony was actually false or that prosecution knowingly used perjury; state court reasonably rejected claims |
| Brady — nondisclosure re: Leslie White furloughs / contact with Rogoway | Sanders: prosecutor suppressed material impeachment (White’s furloughs/conjugal visits and use as an agent) that would have undermined Rogoway’s ID | State: relationship disclosed at pretrial hearing; evidence of furloughs arises years later and postdates many IDs; no showing White was prosecutor agent or that suppressed evidence was material | Denied — court found disclosure at trial adequate; speculation about White’s influence was unsupported and not material given other IDs (Malloy) |
| Massiah / jailhouse‑informant planting (Bruce Woods) | Sanders: Woods was seated with Sanders to elicit incriminating statements; Woods acted as state agent and relayed statements | State: no proof Woods was government agent or that he deliberately elicited statements; Woods had independent motives and no recording/arrangement shown | Denied — no evidence Woods acted as agent or took steps to elicit statements; Sixth Amendment not violated |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to move to suppress lineup | Sanders: counsel should have moved to suppress (lack of counsel at lineup; suggestive differences — barefoot, Jheri curl, visible injuries) | State: right to counsel had not yet attached; lineup not impermissibly suggestive on video; a suppression motion would likely fail | Denied — counsel not deficient for failing to file a meritless motion; state court reasonably applied Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (prosecution may not secure conviction by use of known false evidence)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (state cannot allow false testimony to go uncorrected; materiality standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose favorable material evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (duty to preserve evidence with apparent exculpatory value)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (need to show bad faith to prove due‑process violation from failed evidence preservation)
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (prohibition on government‑elicited statements after right to counsel attaches)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (right to counsel at post‑indictment lineup)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (suppression of conviction where photographic ID procedure impermissibly suggestive )
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (totality of circumstances test for reliability of identifications)
- Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1 (rare instances requiring new trial where key government witness is wholly discredited)