Peter Brian Cikora v. Richard L. Dugger

CIKORA, Peter Brian

Petitioner-Appellant, DUGGER, Richard L. Respondent-Appellee.

No. 87-5360. Appeals, United States Court of Eleventh Circuit.

March Bierman, Sonnett, Loewy,

Ira N. Shohat Sale, P.A., Miami, Fla., Perry, & Pamela petitioner-appellant. Bartmon, Gen., Richard G. Atty. Asst. Beach, Fla., West Palm for respondent-ap- pellee. CLARK,

Before KRAVITCH *, Judges, Circuit and ESCHBACH Judge. Senior Circuit KRAVITCH, Judge: Circuit challenges Peter Brian Cikora his state grand burglary conviction for theft and weapon. peti- In his federal habeas tion, Cikora claims that the state trial court (1) rights his constitutional when it violated admitted evidence of an out-of-court identi- allegedly impermissi- based on an fication suggestive photo array, and when it bly present refused to allow Cikora to to show that Charles Donorvitch description closely fit the Donorvitch burglar given by immediately af- witnesses ter the crime.

I. August Karen night

On daughter Lynn and her Bobbie Hudson Hollywood, staying at the Hudson were At Hernandez. Florida home Janie a knock p.m., Hernandez heard about 10:00 * Eschbach, designation. Honorable Jesse E. Senior U.S. Cir- Circuit, Judge sitting by cuit for the Seventh at the door. open She did door; son, the put together Cloud composite a de- she through instead looked a blue stained- scription of the intruder: a white male in glass “jailhouse outside, door.” A man mid-twenties, his approximately tall, 5'7" bending over pain, as if in asked use pounds, with short light to medium

telephone, but Hernandez refused. brown hair. Hernandez and Hudson had

At a.m., 1:00 Karen any hair, Hudson not observed scars, was facial marks, awakened barking dogs. The three or tattoos. Cloud then learned from a got up women around, and looked but they neighborhood resident that Cikora fit the could not see anything. An later, hour composite description and lived in the Karen Hudson looked living out the room neighborhood. telephoned Cloud Cikora, window and a saw man on ground on who came over. According to Cloud’stesti- his hands and Although knees. the man mony, Cikora at the time had a full blond had a stocking face, over his Hudson was or sun-bleached moustache that could have able to observe light that he had brown blended into his face. hair eyes. and dark police called, were Deputy Sheriff Edward Baker then took they but nothing. found over case. Baker photo- secured a.m., At 6:30 the three women heard a graph of Cikora from the Sheriff’s Office loud noise at the front door. Karen Hud- put this photograph together with five son out her looked bedroom window and produce others to a photographic lineup. door, saw a man hitting the about four to photos All of the males; showed white four five away. feet In the five seconds in showed men full moustaches, with which Hudson was able to observe the showed a man goatee with a sparse man, she noticed he light had brown moustache, and of Cikora showed hair dark eyes. His face was not cov- sparse moustache. Only Cikora’s ered. height markings. Karen Hudson phone ran to police month get Hernandez, and to One burglary, after the who tried to Officer hold the door. The Baker asked man soon door, shred the three women to how- examine ever, photographic and entered lineup. the house. Hernandez Baker asked Her- hid; dropped Karen Hudson telephone nandez and Lynn Bobbie Hudson to turn and ran down the hallway. away The man while he showed array to Karen her, chased and she turned around to face stated, Hudson. Baker “These pictures yelled him. He at her before hitting her of six white males. One of them is be- over the head and across the face. When lieved to be suspect. you like Lynn Bobbie Hudson called at him stop, to view them pick out you who feel is he ran out of the house. the white male your that was at residence particular this night.” Karen Hudson phoned Karen Hudson police. then pointed As picked up picture she telephone, she Cikora. Baker saw get car; man into then followed Hernandez’ the same procedure she him, Hernandez, screamed at and he turned who pointed towards photo- also her stepping before Cikora, into car. Hernan- graph although she indicated dez ran across the street to her neighbor’s she was not one hundred percent cer- house. From the neighbor’s doorway, Her- tain of her identification. Lynn Bobbie nandez try saw the man to unlock her car. Hudson was identify unable to Cikora. She able to observe him for min- four None of the women during communicated utes, although she seventy-five feet process, selection and Officer Baker did away and admitted that it was difficult for any indicate woman’s selection to the her to see at the time. trial, others. Prior to defense counsel Following incident, suppress Deputy moved Cloud of out-of-court identifi- the Broward County ground Sheriff’s Office ar- cation that the photo array rived the Hernandez house. After was impermissibly suggestive. The court speaking with Hernandez and Hud- Karen denied motion. II. and Hernandez trial, Hudson Karen

At as the man who Cikora identified positively consistently followed This court has home. Officer Hernandez into the broke assessing consti two-step analysis out-of- to each woman’s Baker testified ad tutionality of a trial court’s decision to Five witnesses testi- identification. First, mit identifications. out-of-court testified John Gaetz for the defense. fied original whether the identi must determine friendly with both Hernandez that he was procedure unduly suggestive. fication was Cikora, had seen Hernan- that he and and (11th Kemp, 790 F.2d Dobbs v. night of together before the and Cikora dez Cir.1986), part in on other modified testi- defense witnesses crime. Four the (11th Cir.), F.2d 750 grounds, 809 cert. of Cikora used photograph the fied that — denied, -, lineup had been taken a photographic (1987). If we conclude that burglary. Ci- time before the considerable procedure sugges- the identification shooting he had been kora testified that tive, whether, must then consider we under night of pool until 2:30 a.m. circumstances, totality of the the identi- also went home. He burglary and then was nonetheless Neil fication reliable. See back, chest, his tattoos on exhibited Biggers, 409 U.S. (1972); Dobbs, arm. 790 F.2d stage 1506. This second involves consid- strategy, counsel part the defense As by of five factors identified eration Donorvitch, prisoner subpoenaed Charles opportu- Biggers: Court in Neil v. Pompano, Flor had met that Cikora view, attention, nity degree accuracy that, argued as Donor- jail. ida Counsel certainty, description, of the level of neighborhood Hernandez’ vitch lived length and the of time between the crime burglar given by description of the fit 199, 93 S.Ct. at identification. 409 U.S. at Cloud, he should to Detective the witnesses brought jury court for the to obs into be address our standard of Initially we must expressed concern judge erve.1 The trial district court’s conclusion review of the jury, parading Donorvitch before about procedure was not that the identification calling Donor- although suggested that he suggestive. The district impermissibly might a different be vitch as a witness conclusion, taking into court’s ultimate to exclude Do- The state moved matter. the five factors of Neil consideration norvitch, granted the and the trial court test, deprived that Cikora was Biggers motion. by the admission of process and sentenced to was convicted Cikora identification, ple subject out-of-court years of fifteen prison terms concurrent question of fact nary as a mixed review District Court years. The Florida and five Mata, 455 U.S. and law. Sumner Cf. conviction, 450 So. Appeal affirmed 71 L.Ed.2d petition his then filed 2d 351. Cikora curiam) (ultimate conclusion (per in federal district court. corpus habeas testi of identification admission of whether that the writ Magistrate recommended process of due deprived defendant mony photographic ground that the issue on to which of fact and law mixed suggestive. The impermissibly lineup pro on habeas presumption of correctness concluded, however, that Ci- judge previous as apply). district But ceedings does not must rights by either conclusion explained, were not violated this ultimate ly kora’s intermediate deter on several preceded admission of the identification based If we conclude lineup of Donor- minations. or the exclusion suggestive, impermissibly relief, array was not vitch, F.Supp. 813. and denied compare his Donorvitch view attorney originally to have have appearance 1. Cikora’s intended descrip- and with attorney with Cikora’s testify, as- but Donorvitch’s Donorvitch Kar- police by given Hernandez against privilege tion self-incrimi- serted his client’s merely attorney sought en Hudson. then nation. Cikora’s proceed need not to the five factors of well as our own two-step analysis of identi Biggers Neil v. test. procedures, fication the “ultimate question” of constitutionality refers not to Although we have found no Supreme procedures of the per Court or Eleventh Circuit directly decisions se but rather to the final point, on the former Fifth Circuit consist the reliability ently identifications, applied the “clearly as mea erroneous” stan dard, sured totality on proceedings circumstances, as well appeals, including any impermissible direct to conclusions of the suggestions. courts pretrial that a proce “Unlike a search, warrantless suggestive was not impermissibly suggestive. preindictment dure identification procedure does See, e.g., Estelle, Doescher v. upon a constitutionally iisei/intrude (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Dieci protected Thus, interest. considerations due, Cir.1979), F.2d urging the exclusion deriving evidence 64 from a constitutional violation do bear not (1980); L.Ed.2d 266 United States v. Fran problem.” instant v. Manson coeur, 891, (5th Cir.), 547 F.2d 894 cert. Brathwaite, 98, 13, 432 U.S. 113 n. 97 S.Ct. denied, 932, 431 2640, U.S. 53 2243, 13, 2252 n. (1977) 53 L.Ed.2d 140 L.Ed.2d 249 United v. States cf. added); (emphasis accord United States ex Merkt, 950, (5th 794 Cir.1986) F.2d 958 Kirby rel. Sturges, 397, v. 510 F.2d 406 — (citing Diecidue), denied, cert. U.S. (7th Cir.) (Stevens, J.), denied, cert. 421 -, 1603, 107 (1987).2 S.Ct. 94 L.Ed.2d 789 1016, 2424, U.S. 44 L.Ed.2d 685 Nor do we Supreme view the Court’s deci (1975). sion in Sumner implicitly v. Mata as over We cannot conclude that the district ruling our use the “clearly of erroneous” court was clearly erroneous when it held Mata, standard. In the Court confirmed that pretrial procedure identification that “the question ultimate as to the consti was not impermissibly suggestive. First, tutionality of the pretrial pro identification agree we do not height markings cedures is that question a mixed of law and in Cikora’s photograph flag fact.” 455 waved a 102 red at S.Ct. at 1306. front of Hernandez however, Court explained, also Hudson. Based that upon “the our questions of fact that examination of the array, underlie this ultimate we governed anyone doubt that by viewing array statutory presumption not realize ap three, correctness least [of plied findings all, to state possibly of fact 28 of the photographs other five 2254(d) U.S.C. Id. It is clear “mug from a were also Second, § ].” shots.” Officer previous opinion Supreme Court, as did not Baker direct the women’s attention Prichard, 2. In City Bonner v. 661 F.2d corpus proceedings. As Supreme (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), noted, however, Eleventh Circuit "the voluntariness of a adopted precedent as the decisions the for always uniquely confession has legal had a di mer Fifth Circuit before issued October Maggio mension.” Id. Fulford, at 453. v. Cf. interpanel Under the strict rule accord to 76 L.Ed. adheres, prior which this circuit "a decision of curiam) (state (per 2d 794 court’s conclu banc) (panel the circuit or en not be [can] competency sion defendant’s to stand trial panel only by overturned a but the court presumption factual issue to which of correct sitting en banc.” Id. at 1209. We also must applies). writing ness Were on completely we intervening Supreme adhere to Court cases that slate, might agree Judge clean we with Clark disapprove developed by pan as prior law suggestiveness of undue els, Judge but unlike Clark we do read not analogous to that of voluntariness. But our Supreme Fenton, opinion Court’s in Miller v. unmarked, slate and in our view Miller (1985), as did not erase what was written there before this requiring us to review de novo case. court’s conclusion about the of a recognize pretrial Miller, We procedure. our circuit’s adherence "clearly Court held that a erroneous" standard on state this issue court's conclu sion as to the practice voluntariness of conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s defendant’s confession is employing not a factual resolution to which de novo See review. United v. States presumption Johnson, applies (9th Cir.1987). correctness in federal 820 F.2d array than suggestive less he told them is much when photograph to Cikora’s Gidley, 527 F.2d the sus- States pictured was either United of the men that one Cir.) (defendant only person was fact, enough (5th Baker was pect. In careful appearance long their to turn Asian depicted two other women with ask the procedure. hair), during each identification backs cert. black (1976), 50 L.Ed.2d United S.Ct. Third, suggestion that reject we Cikora’s (4th Cir.) F.2d 1086 Bice-Bey, 701 States suggestive because photo array was pictured (defendant woman Hispanic photos show males three other locks), denied, 464 U.S. dred Although pictured man background. (1983). Because Hispanic, the oth photo appears to be conclude that district court was not men. necessarily Hispanic ers do not show finding clearly erroneous Moreover, race “simply being of a different suggestive, array impermissibly in a placed group from others or ethnic not reach five-factor Neil v. we need line necessarily make that lineup does not Biggers test. suggestive, especially up impermissibly here, in the where, the other individuals III. characteristics roughly the same lineup had features of the accused.” Williams argues that the trial court’s Cikora also Weldon, Cir. permit him to show Donorvitch refusal 1987). process.4 deprived of due him support from Unit primarily Cikora seeks depicted some facial All the men (2d Robinson, 544 F.2d 110 v. ed States in the Although moustache hair. Cikora’s denied, 1050, Cir.1976), 98 434 U.S. cert. definitely is noticeable. sparse, is it picture (1978). 901, L.Ed.2d 803 Robin 54 S.Ct. signifi is Cikora’s moustache Indeed son, a trial held that the Second Circuit one of that of cantly less noticeable than refusing to allow a defend erred in court v. men. States United other Cf. robbery to introduce charged with bank Cir.1982) ant (10th 379, Shoels, F.2d 385 685 testimony by corrections officer that a a men, all with (photo array of seven black picture taken person in a bank surveillance hair, imper- sparse facial but noticeable Turner, Eli during robbery resembled although witness de missibly suggestive police suspected of man whom the clean-shaven), another cert. de criminal scribed in 3117, committing other armed robberies 1134, two 77 nied, 103 S.Ct. 462 U.S. Circuit reversed area. The Second (1983).3 array here photo The L.Ed.2d 1370 process clause on the issue array clause and the Although photocopy of the 3. Arkansas, blurred, person testimony, possible see Rock v. that a It exclusion the record — 2704, 2710-11, U.S. -, array that looking believe L.Ed. 97 — slight Ritchie, (1987); a beard. Pennsylvania had v. U.S. Cikora 2d 37 989, 1001, (1987), -, process the due this claim on bases 4. Cikora “borrowed previously that it had it noted compulsory process itself and clause respect reasoning to the Com much of our (as incorporated sixth amendment clause of the the Sixth Amendment pulsory Process Clause of amendment), provides which fourteenth involving Clause of Due Process from cases proceedings, the accused all criminal that ”[i]n Valenz United States v. Fifth Amendment.” the uela-Bernal, compulsory right enjoy to have ... shall 3440, 458 obtaining his favor.” process witnesses for (1982). 3449, In cases where L.Ed.2d 1193 73 decid- apparently has never Supreme Court The exclu the effect of the has considered this court ap- process compulsory clause ed whether testimony process, have held on due sion evidence, such of real plies to the introduction rise to consistently must a that exclusion himself, as to testimonial as well as Donorvitch before habeas fairness of fundamental denial Assuming amendment sixth evidence. Dugger, granted. See Johnson v. relief can however, stan- we believe applicable, Cir.1987); 726, (11th Martin v. 729 817 F.2d assessing viola- the sixth amendment dards Cir.1985), (11th Wainwright, 770 F.2d 938 process of due itself a violation tion grounds, 781 F.2d 185 part on other challenge a trial in this context—a identical modified (11th Cir.), — U.S. -, denied, cert. testimony. excluding ruling evidence Boney, Shaw v. 695 281 93 L.Ed.2d recently Supreme confirmed Court curiam). Cir.1983) (11th (per process 530 compulsory F.2d relationship of the close though even there was no linking evidence that he had actually person a identified robbery Turner to the for which Robinson other than the defendant as the criminal Robinson, however, was on trial. is not a from photo array. By contrast, in Perry case, and the decision Rushen, in Robinson Cir.1983), rests on a construction of the rules of 838, 105 S.Ct. evidence, process not the due clause of (1984), the L.Ed.2d 77 the Ninth Circuit held Constitution. process that due had not been violated in rape Perry’s trial Perry when prevent granted Federal courts have relief from introducing ed from the testimony of two state convictions when the trial court arbi- witnesses they raped had been in the trarily excluded tending evidence to show same area and time-frame another man person might that another have committed might who have been Perry. confused with They so, however, crime. have done A California evidentiary precluded rule evi only when there was some demonstration tending dence to show person that a third connecting person another particular might have committed the crime unless the crime for which the defendant on trial. defendant also tending introduced evidence Texas, In Washington “to person ‘connect that with the actual (1967), S.Ct. L.Ed.2d the sem- ” commission of the offense.’ Id. at 1449 field, inal case in Supreme Court (quoting People Green, 27 Cal.3d reversed a after conviction a trial in which Cal.Rptr. (1980)). 609 P.2d 468 Per the state court had trial refused allow ry any was unable to make showing that testimony of the defendant's accom- the other linked man to the crime for which plice. testimony That would have shown being he was tried. that the accessory, defendant, not the fired the shot. fatal Id. at 87 S.Ct. at As the explained Ninth Circuit Similarly, held in determining Perry, process what due man Mississippi, Chambers v. dates in requires these cases balancing (1973), interests. The certainly defendant has a state trial court denied pro- Chambers due strong presenting interest exculpatory cess when it refused to allow Chambers to evidence, but the state has an interest in show to the that another person had promoting trials, reliable particularly in repeatedly confessed to the The crime. preventing the injection of collateral issues judge state trial excluded testimony into through unsupported the trial specula because person Chambers had called that tion guilt the of another party. Due witness, as his and Mississippi of process rules may require a trial court to allow evidence permit did not to defendants the introduction of of par evidence another cross-examine their own ty’s Id. at possible guilt witnesses. when there is some 293-94, 93 showing 1044-45. of a nexus par between other ty particular and crime with which a Hall, In Pettijohn (1st 599 F.2d 476 charged.5 defendant Cikora has made no Cir.), showing.6 such (1979), 62 L.Ed.2d 315 the First Circuit granted habeas relief because the Accordingly, state tri the order of the district al court had refused to allow the defendant denying corpus writ habeas of to introduce testimony eyewitness of an AFFIRMED. may 5. legitimate There prosecution be other unalterably interests opposed state The was not personal any or privileges appearance. warranting to defense use of exclusion Donorvitch’s evidence, objected The to the of such state of Donor- introduction we are not asked to ad- testimony body vitch’s ground or into evidence on the scope dress the or any existence of such inter- surprise. prosecutor of The stated that ests in this case. should have and been "[i]t care of in a could have taken pre-trial or manner we even could only Cikora’s counsel stated that "[Donorvitch] have had Mr. Cikora and Donorvitch in the Mr. neighborhood. lives in that descrip- He fits the audience, and if [Hernandez Hudson] given T, police tion to the more so much out, pick go him couldn’t it to the credi- than Peter Cikora.” bility viewpoint of the defense’s of the case." concurring example, credibility in the issue

CLARK, Judge, involves Circuit largely of witnesses and therefore turns on dissenting part: in part and of Id. an evaluation demeanor.”1 in the affirmance I concur principles, suggestive these petition for a writ Under of Cikora’s court’s denial question legal would seem to be a from the ma- ness corpus. dissent of least, issue, very question or at the a mixed “standard of re- holding as to our jority’s which, fact, purely legal like a of law court’s conclusion of the district view issue, freely certainly It can imper- reviewable. procedure was not suggestiveness concept II. that the can supra part be said suggestive,” see missively meaning only through applica “given be its adopts “clearly errone- majority particular circumstances of a tion to the only I can assume standard. ous” case”; one need look at the fact-laden has in mind using phrase in majority 52(a), analyses of the courts that have decided Fed.R.Civ.P. set forth in the standard fact, See, question. “Findings suggestiveness e.g., part: which states Brathwaite, documentary evi- on oral or Manson based whether (1977); clearly S.Ct. Neil v. dence, unless not be set aside shall regard given Biggers, erroneous, due shall judge California, court to L.Ed.2d Foster of the trial opportunity 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 credibility of the witnesses.” (1969). Additionally, suggestiveness view, 52(a) application has no my Rule is not one that turns evalua question I dis- proceeding. in this 28 U.S.C. § credibility and/or the tions demeanor an identification agree the issue of underlying the deci The facts witnesses. suggestiveness is procedure’s dispute, and it is virtually sion are never Thus, is nei- of this case fact. our review though the witnesses ever not as relevant 2254(d) 52(a) or a U.S.C. ther a Rule § issue, case, as is the speak to the ultimate Fenton, 474 U.S. In Miller v. review. compe defendant’s example, for when a (1985), L.Ed.2d bias is at issue.2 juror’s tence or a principles set forth several Supreme Court Additionally, none of the distinguish- federal guide courts process challenges dealing of law. cases questions of fact from those ing procedures treats on identification appropriately deemed le- based issue is more An fact; question as one of “[wjhere, example, proof as with gal they cases, anything, they the extent indicate libel malice First-Amendment First, issue is one of law. given imply that the legal principle can be mean- relevant cases, re- the Court has application par- from earliest only through its ing following “standard” case,” 452, of a id. at ferred circumstances ticular “ procedure an identification ‘perceived shortcom- “test”: whether there are or where give suggestive as to impermissibly by or “so way of fact of bias is ings of the trier of misidenti- rise to a substantial likelihood (quoting Bose some other factor.’” Id. See, e.g., v. United Simmons United fication.” Corp. v. Consumers Union of 971, 967, 377, 384, States, 485, 518, 390 U.S. States, Inc., 466 U.S. Biggers, (1984) (Rehn- 1247 Neil v. 1949, L.Ed.2d 1969, L.Ed.2d 502 19 80 Second, in 198, at 381. at J., An is more quist, dissenting)). issue district court Biggers, “[w]hen, for deemed Neil appropriately factual ques that determined setting principles, Court has 2. The these 1. In addition to forth juror’s competence or a issue does not Miller Court stated that “an tions of a defendant’s subject character its resolution clear error questions its factual because to lose is bias are fact ques- dispositive constitutional of the ultimate See presumption correctness. review and the lan- Because of this 106 S.Ct. at 451. tion.” S.Ct. Fulford, 103 Maggio accepting majority’s guage, I have trouble (competence); L.Ed.2d 794 namely, sugges- that the of the use 1036, 1025, Yount, converse— Patton v. 2885, question is because it issue is a factual tiveness bias). (1984) (juror dispositive constitutional ultimate question. found that the lineup was impermissibly questions all to which the statu- of fact suggestive without addressing its reliabili- tory presumption applies. ty, the Sixth affirmed, Circuit and the Su- Id. at 102 S.Ct. at 1306-07 (emphasis preme reversed, Court ruling that an inde- added). Elsewhere in the opinion, the pendent determination of reliability was Court states that on the case’s first appear- necessary. The majority and dissent it, ance before “We expressed no view toas clashed over whether the reversal amount- whether the procedures impermis- had been ed to a failure to by abide the rule that sibly suggestive. That was question when the two courts below have concurred Appeals Court of to decide in the first findings fact, their the Court should instance complying 2254(d).” with § after not upset those findings. The majority Id. at S.Ct. 1306. These state- wrote that the rule was “inapplicable here ments taken together indicate sug- that the where the dispute between parties gestiveness determination is at least in part not so much over the elemental facts legal conclusion. The “facts” referred to over the constitutional significance to be long quoted passage historical, are attached to them.” Id. at 193 n. 93 S.Ct. verifiable events. See Martin v. Kemp, at 379 n. 3. Cir.1985)(“ ‘[fac- tual issues basic, Finally, include primary, in Sumner histor- Mata, 455 U.S. facts,’ ical 591, 102 such as external S.Ct. events and (1987)— credibility determinations”) (quoting identification Town- addressing case Sain, send v. standard of 309 n. review directly Court —the 755 n. seemed to L.Ed.2d (1963)). deliberately sidestep the issue of Moreover, the Court’s standard of instruction to review reach to accorded the the suggestiveness questions, second-tier i.e., determination ac- suggestiveness after cording the facts their presumption reliability. In of cor- reversing the Ninth Cir rectness implies cuit that the for its failure determination accord the state not accorded such a presumption, i.e., court’s fact findings is not the presumption of a factual issue. correctness by mandated 2254(d), section the Court did not really specify which tier For reasons, these I respectfully dissent of findings the of Appeals Court had mis from the majority’s holding sug- treated. The did, however, offer gestiveness question is subject to clear er- clues: ror analysis. concur, I however, in the agree We majority’s decision Court of Appeals merits. The case is a troubling question ultimate as to the because the only constitu- evi- tionality dence connecting pretrial the defendant identification pro- the bur- glary cedures was the used in this by case is a two mixed witness- es under of law and circumstances fact grave not gov- raise erned doubts as to 2254(d). deciding § of the pro- question, cedure. no law, see error federal give court may however, dif- ferent weight court’s the facts as conclusion found that when state court and identifications may are reach viewed in their a different totali- ty, there light sufficient legal indicia of reliability standard. negate But questions violation of process. fact that Be- underlie cause ultimate these indicia of governed reliability represent are the statutory limitations on a presumption federal court’s our review of a earlier opinion conviction, state Thus, join made clear. majority whether af- firming witness in this judgment. case had an court’s opportunity to observe the crime or were too dis- tracted; whether the gave witnesses detailed, accurate description; whether the witnesses were pres- under

sure prison or others from officials

Case Details

Case Name: Peter Brian Cikora v. Richard L. Dugger

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Mar 25, 1988

Citation: 840 F.2d 893

Docket Number: 87-5360

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.