Second Circuit reverses another habeas grant, and, just like the last time this happened (in Gueits back in July), questions of petitioner's innocence hang over the case.
Here are the details:
Richardson v. Superintendent Mid-Orange Correctional Facility, 09-3655-pr
- Reversing Habeas Grant (opinion here)
- Argued: 3/11/10; Decided: 9/20/10
- Panel: Jacobs, Lynch, Restani, USCIT
- Lower Ct Info: 03-CV-2061, 2009 WL 2358619 (EDNY Aug. 3, 2009) (SJ)
- Issue: Unduly suggestive identification procedure
Here is the analysis:
The DJ concluded that two stationhouse show up ID's were suggestive and unreliable. The Second Circuit concludes otherwise. First, the Second Circuit concludes that one claim was procedurally barred from review. As for the second, the court believes that it wasn't suggestive, and wasn't unreliable.
But the more interesting part about it is this: the Second Circuit does express a concern about whether petitioner is innocent. The court stated, "Like the district court, we are concerned by the possibility that Richardson was an innocent bystander and that [the eyewitness] misidentified Richardson as a shooter based on a subconscious but inaccurate mental association between Richardson, who was present on the scene, and the young, short perpetrator."
That's a strong statement. But the result ends up like Gueits, not like the extraordinary one in Friedman. The court basically says, "oh well, there's nothing we can do." It points out that, in their mind, any possible mistake in the identification evidence was a "result of his inaccurate mental association" rather than any suggestiveness in the showups. Although the court did not put it this way, what they are really saying is that the jury had a chance to consider whether the identification was inaccurate and rejected it. On habeas review, the Second Circuit won't revisit that question.
A disappointing result for a petitioner who seems to have a legitimate claim to innocence.
Comments