715 F.3d 79
2d Cir.2013Background
- Young was convicted of a 1991 armed robbery in which Mrs. Sykes identified him after a tainted lineup; the lineup taint prompted a Wade independent-source inquiry.
- A Wade hearing found no independent source for Mrs. Sykes’s in-court identification eight years after the crime, leading to reversal concerns for retrial.
- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed Wade’s independent-source finding in 2006, upholding the in-court identification as independent of the tainted lineup.
- Young filed a federal habeas petition; the district court vacated the conviction and a panel of the Second Circuit affirmed with remand for retrial without the tainted identification.
- Judge Raggi dissented in the panel decision, urging en banc review on Stone v. Powell, Harrington v. Richter, and Cullen v. Pinholster grounds.
- The lead opinion amended to deny rehearing en banc despite the concurrent dissents, raising questions about Stone, AEDPA deference, and reliance on extrinsic social-science materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stone v. Powell bar on review? | Young argues Stone bars habeas review of his Fourth Amendment claim. | Panel reasoned Stone is not jurisdictional but can preclude review when full and fair opportunity existed. | Stone bars habeas relief absent denial of full and fair opportunity. |
| AEDPA deference to Wade ruling? | Panel erred in treating NY Court of Appeals’ Wade ruling as unreasonable under Harrington. | State court decisions are entitled to deference; fairminded disagreement possible. | Panel’s Wade independent-source determination not an unreasonable application. |
| Cullen v. Pinholster violation? | Panel relied on social-science materials outside the state record to decide Wade. | Extrinsic studies assist bench and bar and do not affect the independent-source analysis. | Panel’s reliance on extrinsic materials violated Cullen v. Pinholster. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967) (independent-source rule for in-court identifications after tainted lineups)
- United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1980) (independent recollection can sustain identification)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (S. Ct. 2011) (review under § 2254(d)(1) limited to state-court record)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (unreasonable application requires more than mere disagreement)
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (U.S. 1976) (bar on federal habeas relief for Fourth Amendment claims absent full and fair opportunity)
- Stevens v. Miller, 676 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2012) (circuit cases on exclusionary-rule review and Stone deference)
- Graham v. Costello, 299 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2002) (Stone bar to federal review of Fourth Amendment claims is permanent and incurable absent full and fair opportunity)
- Woolery v. Arave, 8 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussion of whether Stone bar is waivable or sua sponte applicants)
- United States v. Luis, 835 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1987) (consideration of corroborative evidence in Wade context)