On Point blog, page 3 of 3
Exculpatory Evidence – “Materiality”
Juan Smith v. Cain, USSC No. 10-8145, 1/10/12
Statements by the sole eyewitness, who identified Smith at trial as one of the perpetrators, that in fact he couldn’t see the faces of the perpetrators were “material” to determination of Smith’s guilt. Therefore, the state’s failure to disclose these statements before trial violated Smith’s due process right to exculpatory evidence.
Under Brady, the State violates a defendant’s right to due process if it withholds evidence that is favorable to the defense and material to the defendant’s guilt or punishment.
Identification Procedure – Improper Law Enforcement (vs. “Happenstance”)
Barion Perry v. New Hampshire, USSC No. 10-8974, 1/11/12, affirming State v. Perry (N.H. sup. ct. 11/18/10)
For purposes of due process, a pretrial identification isn’t suppressible unless the product of improper law enforcement activity.
We have not extended pretrial screening for reliability to cases in which the suggestive circumstances were not arranged by law enforcement officers. Petitioner requests that we do so because of the grave risk that mistaken identification will yield a miscarriage of justice.1 Our decisions,
Habeas Review – Confrontation – Admissibility of Prior Testimony, Showing of Witness Unavailability
Hardy v. Irving L. Cross, USSC No. 11-74, 12/12/11, reversing Cross v. Hardy, 7th Cir No. 09-1666
The Seventh Circuit grant of habeas relief, on the ground “the state failed to demonstrate that it employed good faith efforts to locate the complainant” before declaring her “unavailable” and allowing her prior testimony to be read to the jury, is reversed:
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of1996 (AEDPA),
Habeas – Miranda
Bobby v. Archie Dixon, USSC No. 10-1540, 11/7/11 (per curiam), reversing Dixon v. Houk, 627 F.3d 553 (6th Cir 2010)
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court “must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v.
Habeas – Sufficiency of Evidence Review
Cavazos v. Shirley Ree Smith, USSC No. 10-1115, 10/31/11 (per curiam); prior history: Smith v. Mitchell, 437 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2006), vacated and remanded in light of Carey v. Musladin, 549 U. S. 70 (2006) by Patrick v. Smith, 550 U. S. 915, reinstated on remand, 508 F. 3d 1256 (2007); vacated and remanded in light of McDaniel v.