Triandus Tabb v. Tim Christianson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7621
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2003 Salvador Gomez was shot; seven weeks later he identified Triandus Tabb in a police lineup; Tabb was convicted mainly on eyewitness ID and other conflicting witness accounts; no physical evidence linked Tabb to the shooting.
- Years later Tabb pursued state post-conviction relief alleging new evidence of actual innocence and that the lineup was suggestive; witnesses recanted or changed stories and Tabb sought discovery of investigator interview notes.
- Mrs. Gomez told defense investigators she saw a photograph of Tabb on a desk before the lineup and that a police officer later showed her the same photo; state investigators memorialized and later revised her account, then destroyed the handwritten notes after typing summaries.
- State courts denied relief after an evidentiary hearing, finding new evidence not reliable enough to change the outcome and no bad faith or material exculpatory content in the destroyed notes.
- In federal habeas proceedings Tabb raised Brady suppression of a suggestive lineup, a Youngblood claim for bad-faith destruction of post-conviction interview notes, and a freestanding actual-innocence claim; the district court allowed limited discovery but denied habeas relief; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady: suppression of material evidence about a suggestive lineup | Tabb: Mrs. Gomez’s statements show the police primed or confirmed Gomez’s ID and the State suppressed those facts; that tainted the lineup and was material | State: no evidence that Gomez saw a photo before the lineup or that the police confirmed his ID; no suppressed material favorable evidence | No Brady violation — petitioner failed to prove the lineup was suggestive or that material favorable evidence was suppressed |
| Youngblood: bad-faith destruction of post-conviction interview notes | Tabb: destruction of handwritten notes deprived him of potentially exculpatory evidence and supports inference of bad faith | State: notes were routine working notes later summarized; no showing notes contained obvious exculpatory material or were destroyed in bad faith | No Youngblood violation — state court reasonably found no bad faith and no clear material exculpatory content |
| Procedural default / Excuse of default | Tabb: default should be excused because he only learned of the suggestive-lineup facts from Mrs. Gomez after trial; actual prejudice could have resulted | State: Tabb failed to fairly present Brady claims in state courts earlier | Default excused for cause and prejudice, but claim fails on the merits |
| Freestanding actual-innocence claim | Tabb: new affidavits and recantations show he is actually innocent | State: freestanding innocence claim is not cognizable absent independent constitutional violation; evidence is not extraordinarily strong | Court: freestanding claim fails; even if credible, relief requires independent constitutional violation, which Tabb did not prove |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (constitutional obligation to disclose material, favorable evidence)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (due process claim requires bad faith when police destroy potentially exculpatory evidence)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (requirements for destruction-of-evidence claim when bad faith is not shown)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (police suggestion or confirmation can heighten misidentification risk)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (freestanding actual-innocence claims do not alone provide federal habeas relief)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (federal habeas review generally confined to state-court record)