Document: 409 U.S. 188 93 S.Ct. 375 34 L.Ed.2d 401 William S. NEIL, Warden,v.Archie Nathaniel BIGGERS. No. 71-586. Argued Oct. 18 and 19, 1972. Decided Dec. 6, Syllabus Respondent was convicted of rape on evidence that consisted in part testimony concerning the victim's visual voice identification respondent at a station-house showup occurred seven months after rape. The victim, who had been presence her assailant considerable time directly observed him indoors under full moon outdoors, testified she 'no doubt' assailant. She previously given police description assailant, which confirmed by officer. Before where identified respondent, victim made no others were presented previous showups, lineups, or through photographs. asserted they used technique because difficulty finding for lineup other individuals generally fitting respondent's as victim. Tennessee Supreme Court's affirmance conviction affirmed here an equally divided Court. 390 404, 88 979, 19 1267. then brought habeas corpus action District After rejecting petitioner's contention this constituted actual adjudication within meaning 28 U.S.C. § 2244(c) thus barred further review federal proceeding, Court, noting is relatively more reliable than showup, held confrontation so suggestive to violate due process. Court Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. This state court does not, 2244(c), bar relief corpus, since such merely ends process direct but settles issue law. Pp. 190—192. 2. While may have suggestive, totality circumstances properly allowed go jury. 196—201. 448 F.2d 91, part, reversed remanded. Bart C. Durham III, Nashville, Tenn., petitioner. Michael Meltsner, New York City, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion 1 In 1965, jury trial court, sentenced 20 years' imprisonment. State's Biggers v. State, 219 Tenn. 553, 411 S.W.2d 696 (1967). On certiorari, judgment Tennessee, 1267 (1968) (Marshall, J., not participating). raising several claims. reply, petitioner contended claims provides pertinent part: 2 'In proceeding behalf person custody pursuant State prior United States appeal writ certiorari instance prisoner decision shall be conclusive all issues fact law with respect denial Federal right constitutes ground discharge actually adjudicated therein . .' 3 and, hearing, unreported procedure 6 Cir., 91 (1971). We granted decide whether barring subsequent consideration if violated 405 954, 92 1167, 31 230 (1972). 4 * intended scope phrase 'actually Court' must determined reference peculiarities jurisdiction context enacted. Jurisdiction hear first expressly conferred courts Judiciary Act 1867, c. 28, 14 Stat. 385. Thereafter, decisions established only res judicata inapplicable, e.g., Salinger Loisel, 265 224, 230, 44 519, 521, 68 L.Ed. 989 (1924); Fay Noia, 372 391, 423, 83 822, 840, 9 837 (1963), also obliged appropriate cases redetermine By same token, developed number limiting principles restrain open-ended relitigation, among them successive application grounds rejected might denied without reaching merits. supra, U.S., 231, S.Ct., 521. 5 1948, Congress codified version rule 2244. As redesigned amended 1966, 2244(b) shields against senseless repetition prisoners endangering principle each entitled, limitations aside, redetermination his corpus. With mind, purpose enacted becomes clear. subsection embodies recognition has adjudicated' claim he entitled. A would serve valid add unnecessarily already overburdened system criminal justice.1 light, we our explicating disposition 'affirmed Court.' what apparently occasion equal division, Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66, 268 (1825), simply point division much discussion. Id., 126—127. Faced similar during next Term, again affirmed, Chief Marshall explaining 'the argued, cannot settled; being upon it.' Etting Bank States, 11 59, 78, 419 (1826). later elaborated, it appellant asks overturn lower court's decree. 7 'If judges are divided, reversal had, order can made. below, therefore, stands force. It is, indeed, settled practice case enter affirmance; most convenient mode expressing cause finally disposed conformity proceed enforce its judgment. legal effect appeal, error, dismissed.' Durant Essex Co., Wall. 107, 112, 154 (1869). 8 Nor entitled precedential weight. Ohio ex rel. Eaton Price, 364 263, 264, 80 1463, 1464, 1708 (1960). decline construe 2244 (c)'s extending absence majority position accordingly conclude below reached merits.2 II proceed, then, consider claim.3 turns facts, relevant hearing regarding identification. evening January 22, youth butcher knife grabbed doorway kitchen: 'A. (H)e me from behind, grappled—twisted floor. Threw down 'Q. And there light kitchen? Not kitchen. 12 So you couldn't seen then? 13 Yet, I could see him, when looked up face. dark? 15 He doorway—it enough bedroom shining through. Yes, was. 16 You see? No light? know 17 Yes.' Tr. Rec. 237, O.T.1967, pp. 33—34. When screamed, 12-year-old daughter came out began scream. directed 'tell (the daughter) shut up, I'll kill both.' did so, walked knifepoint about two blocks along railroad track, taken into woods, raped there. brightly, moon.' rape, ran off, returned home, whole incident having between minutes half hour. gave characterized 'only very general description,' describing 'being fat flabby smooth skin, bushy hair youthful voice.' Additionally, though mentioned described years old five feet ten inches six feet, tall, weighing 180 200 pounds, dark brown complexion. substantially corroborated officer testifying notes. occasions over course months, viewed suspects home station, some lineups shown 30 40 told man pictured one photographs features those none suspects. August 17, called station view detained another charge. effort construct suitable lineup, checked city jail juvenile home. Finding either place unusual physical description, conducted instead. 21 itself detectives walking past At request, say 'shut you.' altogether clear asked repeat words spoken.4 any event, elaborated response questioning. 22 That doubt, mean am sure see, laid eyes knew individual, face—well, just something don't think ever forget. believe— 23 referring to? 24 him—when courthouse took suspect.' App. 127. 25 whether, held, surrounding failed comport requirements. III 26 considered four protection admission deriving procedures. Stovall Denno, 388 293, 87 1967, 1199 (1967), defendant conductive irreparable mistaken law.' 301—302, 'on circumstances.' went find facts before us, violated, emphasizing critical condition injured witness justified hospital room. trial, witness, whose suspect crime brief, out-of-court identification, officers present room, in-court 27 Subsequently, witnesses identifications arguably stemming exposure photographic array, restated governing test: '(W)e hold own convictions based eye-witness following pretrial photograph will set aside impermissibly give rise substantial likelihood misidentification.' Simmons 377, 384, 967, 971, 1247 (1968). 29 Again found supportable, relying both need prompt utilization investigative leads reliable, bank robbers periods good lighting conditions robbery. date procedures violative Foster California, 394 440, 442, 89 1127, 1128, 402 (1969). There, identify confronted despite lineup. arranged make tentative Ultimately, yet confrontation, able muster definite inadmissible, observing 'all inevitable' circumstances. 443, 1129. recent Coleman Alabama, 399 1, 90 1999, 387 (1970), admissible fleeting 'real look' headlights passing car. suppression petitioners participants placed formal line. Brennan members stated support 'entirely observations assault induced conduct lineup.' 5—6, 2001. 32 Some guidelines emerge these relationship suggestiveness misidentification. all, apparent primary evil avoided 'a 971. coined standard determining wake deletion 'irreparable' serves well admissibility itself.5 misidentification violates defendant's process, basis exclusion Foster. Suggestive confrontations disapproved increase misidentification, ones condemned reason increased chance gratuitous. But makes clear, 33 What less intimated unnecessary alone requires evidence.6 inclined agree exhaust possibilities seeking persons physically comparable do therefore excluded. strict deter using available, assumption every offends Clemons 133 U.S.App.D.C. 27, 48, 408 1230, 1251 (Leventhal, concurring); cf. Gilbert 273, 1951, 1957, 1178 (1967); Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961). Such case, preceded notice anything matter argued turn, central question, 'totality circumstances' even suggestive. indicated cases, factors evaluating include opportunity crime, witness' degree attention, accuracy criminal, level certainty demonstrated length confrontation. Applying factors, disagree conclusion. 35 discussed above, focused unduly relative reliability opposed expert evidentiary hearing. kept mind incentive lacking parties record corroborating undermining addressed jury, reliable. self-serving too neatly fit law, surely nothing undermine record, fully 36 conclusions unsupported clearly erroneous. spent period adequate artificial house least twice, once faced intimately. casual observer, rather personally humiliating crimes.7 Her police, included assailant's approximate age, height, weight, complexion, skin texture, build, voice, satisfied Proust ordinarily thorough. her. nature rarely often limited observation.8 here, practical nurse profession, observe face 'I forget.' 37 There was, sure, lapse seriously negative factor cases. Here, however, undisputed showings. one, resisted whatever inheres showup. Weighing jury.9 38 Affirmed 39 MARSHALL case. BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS STEWART concur, concurring dissenting part. 41 determine f adn bars holds today relief, concur aspect opinion. Regrettably, addresses merits delves factual background reverse finding, upheld Appeals, circumstances,' pre-Stovall unjustified departure long-established findings concurred unless See, Blau Lehman, 368 403, 408—409, 82 451, 454—455, 403 (1962); Faulkner Gibbs, 338 267, 268, 70 25, 94 62 (1949); Dickinson, 331 745, 751, 67 1382, 1386, 1789 (1947); Commercial Credit 286 63, 67, 52 467, 468, 76 978 (1932); Chemical Foundation, 272 14, 47 71 131 (1926); Baker Schofield, 243 114, 118, 333, 334, 61 626 (1917); Towson Moore, 173 332, 43 597 (1899); Boulden Holman, 478, 480—481, 1138, 1139—1140, 433 42 recognizes, obtained result still introduced if, retains strong indicia reliability. extensive careful that, existed intolerable risk Moreover, making determination, specifically complaining get obtain commission crime,' show-up near alleged but, rather, commission,' unable assailant' police. 41—42. their entirety. 95 (CA6 1971). Although seem fall squarely bounds 'two-court' rule, seems suggest 'inapplicable here' 'this contained primarily (equally available us below) ..' Ante, 193 n. 3. rests mere deference trier firsthand gauge credibility witnesses. For indispensable judicial 'time-saver,' waste scarce resources minor questions accorded resolution significance except immediately involved. Thus, logically apply where, courts' record. argues further, irrelevant because, view, dispute elemental constitutional attached them.' agree. Even cursory examination reveals concern solely proper extends essentially de novo inquiry 'elemental facts' type crime. although reasonably matters, wisely inhibits cavalierly substituting adopt different construction resolve ambiguities differently. contrary, 'final exceptional showing error.' Comstock Group Institutional Investors, 335 211, 214, 1454, 1456, 1911 (1948). susceptible argue otherwise. dismiss improvidently insofar relates Question Questions Presented. legislative history adds little. Senate Report states, cryptically, '(t)his presumption adjudications rights, denials writs certiorari.' S.Rep.No. 1797, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., (1966); U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. 3664. address surprising rarity affirmances aided, thoughtful Judge Mansfield Radich Criminal Ct. City York, 459 745 (CA2 1972), pet. cert. pending sub nom. Ross Radich, 1510. dissent Appeals—after reviewing entire record—found (not) erroneous.' 95. said should depart 'our Post, 202. practice, lightly concurrent courts, salutary followed applicable. inapplicable them. purported 'confined' specific deem controlling. Of nine cited urged eight involved civil litigation system. Only cited, (1969), held—on 'an independent study record'—that conclusion 'was justified.' 480, 481, 1140. explicitly spoken testified: characteristics, any, caused him? First all,—uh—his size,—next remember voice. voice? Describe Jury. Well, immature youth—I call youth. teen-age boys. thing boy.' 17. colloquy continued, characteristics. 80, 123, 134. See 47, 1250 (McGowan, en banc), denied, 964, 1318, 567 controversy, irrelevant, evident many testimonial links defendant' answer 'yes,' recognize out-ofcourt overturned. stated: appears line-up, sides admit show-up, arranged. done tended needlessly decrease fairness subjected.' 42. Phipps Follette, 428 912, 915—916 (CA2) (Friendly, J.), 400 908, 151, 146 (1970). attaches weight failure him. Apart bear mother's girl best tell brief across Respondent's petition raised claims, including challenging legality detention nor we.

Category: 0