1

09-3471-pr Bennett v. Miller



### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



## SUM MARY ORDER

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT

. C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ONO RAFTER J

ANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 3 2 .1 AN D T H I S C OURT ’ S LOCAL R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL

.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 1 day of April, two thousand eleven. st 5 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 6 7 Chief Judge, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 REENA RAGGI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X LARRY BENNETT, 13 14 Petitioner-Appellant, 15 16 17 -v.- 09-3471-pr 18 19 DAVID MILLER, Superintendent, Eastern 20 Correctional Facility, ANDREW M. 21 CUOMO, New York State Attorney 22 General, 23 24 Respondents-Appellees. 25 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 272

APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: KYLE W. K. MOONEY (Jamie A. 1 2 Levitt and Michael Gerard, on 3 the brief), Morrison & Foerster, 4 L.L.P., New York, NY. 5 6 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: SHOLOM J. TWERSKY, Assistant 7 District Attorney (Leonard 8 Joblove, Assistant District 9 Attorney, on the brief), for 10 Charles J. Hynes, District 11 Attorney for Kings County, 12 Brooklyn, NY. 13 14 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 15 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Townes, J.). 16 17 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 18 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 19 AFFIRMED

. 20 21 Pur sua nt to a c ert ifi cat e o f a ppe ala bil ity , petitioner22 appellant Larry Bennett app eal s f romth e d eni al of his 23 pet iti on forha bea s r eli ef und er 28 U.S .C. § 225 4 b y t he 24 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New 25 York (Townes, J.)

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with 26 the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 27 presented for review. 28 29 A state’s resolution of a claim is entitled to 30 deference under the Ant ite rro ris m a nd Eff ect iveDe ath 31 Pen alt y A ct of 199 6 ( “AE DPA ”) if it “was adjudicated on the 32 merits in State court proceedings.” See 28 U.S.C. 33 § 2254(d). The Appellate Division, Second Department, 34 affirmed Bennett’s convictions for the counts at issue in 35 this petition on the ground that they “ eit her[w e]r e 36 unp res erv ed forap pel lat e r evi ew, wi tho ut mer it, ord[ id] 37 notre qui re rev ers al. ” Peo plev. Be nne tt, 78 5 N .Y. S.2 d 5 26, 38 527 (2 d D ep’ t 2 004 ) ( cit ati on omi tte d). The New York Court 39 of Appeals denied Bennett leave to appeal, rendering final 40 the decision by the Second Department. 4 N.Y.3d 796 (2005). 41 TheSe con d D epa rtment ’s dec isi on is ent itl ed to AED PA 42 def ere nce , b eca usean“‘ eit her /or ’ d eci sio n i s d eemed to 43 res t o n t he mer its ofth e f ede ral cl aim

. . . be cau se the re 44 is no pla in sta tementtoth e c ont rar y.” J ime nez v. Wa lke r, 45 458 F. 3d 130 , 1 46 (2dCi r. 200 6).3 1 In rev iew ingth e meri ts, weco nsi derwh eth er theSe con d 2 Dep art men t’s re jec tio n o f B enn ett ’s cla ims “r esu lte d i n a 3 dec isi on tha t w as con tra ry to, orin vol vedanun rea son abl e 4 app lic ati on of, cl ear ly est abl ish ed Fed era l l aw, as 5 det erm ine d b y t he Sup reme C our t.” §22 54( d)( 1). 6 “[D ]et erm ine d b y t he Sup reme C our t” ref ers to“t he hol din gs, 7 as opp ose d t o t he dic ta, ofth [e Sup reme] Cou rt’ s d eci sio ns 8 as of theti me of there lev antst ate -co urtde cis ion .” 9 Wil liams v. Tay lor , 5 29 U.S . 3 62, 41 2 ( 200 0). 10 11 [1] Bennett argues that the admission of Ellis’s in-court 12 identification was an unreasonable application of Manson v. 13 Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977), and Neil v. Biggers, 409 14 U.S. 188 (1972). Thefi rstin qui ry is whe the r t he 15 ide nti fic ati on pro cedurewa s “ unn ece ssa ril y s ugg est ive ,” 16 Big ger s, 409 U. S. at 198 ; t he sec ond , whet her“u nde r t he 17 ‘to tal ityofth e c irc ums tan ces ’ t he ide nti fic ati on was 18 rel iab le eve n t hou gh theco nfr ont ati on pro cedurewa s 19 sug ges tiv e.” I d. at 199

. 20 21 Theci rcumst anc es sur rou ndi ng Ell is’ s i den tif ica tio n 22 wer e e xtr eme ly sug ges tiv e. El lis ne verid ent ifi ed Ben net t 23 pri or to tri al; hetw icefa ile d t o makeanin -co urt 24 ide nti fic ati on whi le on thest and ; a nd onl y a fte r h e w atc hed 25 fro m t he gal leywh en thepr ose cut or ide nti fie d B enn ettas 26 thesh oot er didEl lis un der tak e t o makeanin -co urt 27 ide nti fic ati on. T hes e c irc ums tan ces ma de it “al l b ut 28 ine vit abl e t hat[E lli s] wou ld ide nti fy [Be nne tt] .” Fo ste r 29 v. Cal ifo rni a, 394 U. S. 440 , 4 43 (19 69)

. 30 31 “[R ]el iab ili ty is theli nchpininde termin ingth e 32 adm iss ibi lit y o f i den tif ica tio n t est imo ny, ” Mans on, 43 2 U .S. 33 at 114 ; e venanun dul y s ugg est iveid ent ifi cat ionma y s ati sfy 34 duepr oce ss if it was ne ver the les s r eli abl e. Th e 35 rel iab ili ty fac tor s i n B igg ers gu ideth e i nqu iry , s ee 36 Big ger s, 409 U. S. at 199 -20 0, eve n t hou gh the y a re notth e 37 onl y h all mar ks of duepr oce ss, se e B ris co v. Erc ole , 5 65 38 F.3 d 8 0, 94 (2dCi r. 200 9). As a bouncer, Ellis had a good 39 vantage point and a duty to be attentive; but these factors 40 are outweighed by [1] the vague description of the young men 41 he gave to officers on the night of the shooting, [2] the 42 one-year gap between the shooting and the identification he 43 made at trial, [3] his inability to make an identification 44 during his first appearance on the stand, and [4] the 45 “corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself.” 46 Man son , 4 32 U.S . a t 1 14.We need not consider whether this instruction might * have been more effective if worded differently because no such request was made at trial.

4 1 How eve r, anyer rorfr om Ell is’ s i den tif ica tio n w as 2 harmle ss bec aus e t he ide nti fic ati on didno t h avea 3 “su bst ant ial an d i nju rio us eff ectorin flu enc e i n 4 det erm ini ng theju ry’ s v erd ict .” Br ech t v . Abra ham son , 5 07 5 U.S . 6 19, 62 3 ( 199 3); se e F ry v. Pli ler , 5 51 U.S . 1 12, 12 1- 6 22 (20 07)

. Ell is was no t a n e yew itn ess toth e s hoo tin gs, 7 nordi d h e u lti mat elyli nk Ben net t t o afi rea rm or there d 8 van
. Fur the rmo re, th e o the r e vid enc e i mpl ica tin g B enn ett 9 was su bst ant ial , i ncl udi ng tes tim onybyth reeey ewi tne sse s 10 whoid ent ifi ed Ben net t a s t he sho ote r a t t ria l ( twoofwh om 11 hadid ent ifi ed himsh ort ly aft er thein cid entas we ll) , 12 sig nif ica nt dis cre pan cie s i n B enn ett ’s acc oun t o f t he 13 eve nin g ( as setou t i n h is twost ate men ts) , a nd the 14 dis cov eryofBe nne tt’ s i den tif ica tio n i n t he vaninwh ich 15 themu rde r w eap on was fo und

. 16 17 [2] Ben net t a rgu es tha t t he pro sec uti on’ s k now ingus e o f 18 thefa lsebl ood -st ainev ide ncewa s c ont rar y t o, or an 19 unr eas ona bleap pli cat ionof , M ill er v. Pat e, 386 U. S. 1 20 (19 67)

. In Miller, hab eas wa s g ran tedtoa manco nvi cte d o f 21 themu rde r o f a n e igh t-y earol d g irl (who die d a s are sul t 22 of a b rut al sex ual at tac k), be cau se thepr ose cut ionha d m ade 23 “co nsi ste nt andre pea tedmi sre pre sen tat ion [s] ” t hat 24 und erw earat tri but ed to thede fen dan t w as sta ine d w ithbl ood 25 tha t m atc hedth e v ict im’ s b loo d t ypeno twi ths tan din g t he 26 pro sec uti on’ s k now ledge fro m ach emi cal mi cro ana lys is tha t 27 thest ain s w erepa int , n ot blo od. I d. at 5-6

. 28 29 Here, the prosecutor’s behavior was egregious; he is no 30 longer employed by the Kings County District Attorney’s 31 office. Not wit hst and inghi s m isc onduct , h abe as rel iefis 32 war ran tedon ly if the re is “an y r eas ona bleli kel iho od tha t 33 thefa lsete sti mon y c oul d h aveaf fec tedth e j udgmen t o f t he 34 jur y.” D rak e v . P ort uon do, 55 3 F .3d23 0, 241 (2 d C ir. 20 09) 35 (in ter nal qu ota tio n mark s o mit ted ). Up on car efu l r evi ew, we 36 seenore aso nab le lik eli hoo d t hatth e p ros ecu tor ’s 37 mis con duc t a ffe cte d t he jur y’s ve rdi ct. F irs t, the 38 sti pul ati on rea d t o t he jur y-- ack now ledgin g t hatth e s tai n 39 was no t b loo d-- was cl ear , c onc ise , a nd eas y t o f oll ow. 40 Sec ond , t he cou rt pro vid ed a c ura tiv e i nst ruc tio n ( whi ch 41 ope rat ed as a r ebu ke) immed iat elyfo llo win g t he imp rop er 42 summat ionar gument

. Third, thebl oodev ide ncewa s b oth *5 1 cumula tiv e a nd col lat era l: Thepr ose cut ionwa s n ot requir ed 2 to pro ve tha t B enn ettha d b eeninth e v an; an d, in any 3 eve nt, th e r eco ver y o f B enn ett ’s ide nti fic ati on (an d t he 4 tes tim onybyCh ris top herMa rti n) con nec tedhi m t o t he van

. 5 6 We have considered Bennett’s other arguments and conclude 7 that they lack merit. For the foregoing reasons, we hereby 8 AFFIRMthe judgment of the district court. 9 10 11 FOR THE COURT: 12 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 13