Young v. Conway
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7938
W.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Petitioner Rudolph Young, proceeding pro se, seeks a habeas corpus writ under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction after a 1993 jury trial for two counts of first-degree robbery and one count of first-degree burglary.
- The offenses arose from a 1991 home-invasion robbery of the Sykes family in Brighton, New York, where the intruder wore a blanket and scarf and threatened violence while taking cash and personal property.
- Initial police identification included a lineup where Mrs. Sykes identified Young, despite an unsuccessful photo-array identification; the test for probable cause and the taint from the line-up were central to later proceedings.
- The New York Appellate Division directed an independent-source hearing to determine if Mrs. Sykes’s in-court identification could be independently based on observations at the crime, apart from the tainted lineup.
- At retrial, Mrs. Sykes identified Young in court; witnesses linked him to the crime through recovered watches, binoculars, and gloves; Dr. Brigham’s proposed eyewitness-identification testimony was excluded at trial, prompting post-trial CPL § 330.30 proceedings.
- Young’s federal petition raises four grounds: (1) lack of independent-source basis for in-court identification, (2) improper exclusion of eyewitness-identification expert testimony, (3) unconstitutional persistent-f felony-offender sentencing under Apprendi, and (4) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; the court grants in part and denies in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent source for in-court ID | Sykes's in-court ID lacked independent source apart from tainted lineup. | State courts misapplied Wade; independent source exists based on crime observation. | Ground One granted; in-court ID not independently reliable; conviction vacated as to Sykes-identification evidence. |
| Exclusion of eyewitness-identification expert | Excluding Brigham violated the right to present a defense. | Trial court properly exercised discretion; expert testimony would be minor given corroboration. | Ground Two dismissed as defaulted/blocked; no cause shown for procedural default; claim not reachable on the merits. |
| Constitutionality of sentencing under § 70.10 | Persistent felony offender sentencing violates Apprendi/Blakely principles. | NewYork courts did not apply improper framework; ongoing precedents control. | Ground Three denied; Portalatin controls; sentencing not shown to violate clearly established federal law. |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel | Counsel failed to raise constitutional challenge to exclusion of expert testimony. | New York courts reasonably applied Strickland analysis; no prejudice shown. | Ground Four denied; coram nobis claim rejected; no showing of prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967) (lineup as critical stage; determine independent-source applicability)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (factors for reliability of eyewitness identifications)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (reliability assessment of eyewitness identifications under totality of circumstances)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (right to present a defense; exclusion of critical evidence violates due process)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance standard)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1983) (appellate counsel need not raise every colorable claim)
- People v. Young, 7 N.Y.3d 40 (N.Y. 2006) (court of appeals on independent-source and Brigham testimony issues)
- Portalatin v. Graham, 624 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2010) (whether NY §70.10 satisfies Sixth Amendment wrt Apprendi)