Opinion ID: 4211658
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tami Rogoway’s Allegedly False Testimony

Text: In claims 1 and 2 of his federal habeas petition, Sanders alleges that the prosecution suborned perjury and knowingly presented false identification in Tami Rogoway’s trial testimony. On appeal, Sanders no longer uses the word “suborn,” but continues to maintain that the prosecution knew or should have known Rogoway’s identification testimony was false. Rogoway was one of the two customers at the restaurant on the night of the robbery. She testified at trial that she observed the taller robber for roughly eleven seconds over the course of the robbery: three seconds when he first entered through the front door and another eight seconds while she was in the freezer. Sanders argues that Rogoway’s testimony was false because: (1) her identification testimony changed over time; and (2) she was allegedly unable to identify Sanders until after the prosecution arranged for jailhouse informant Leslie White to be released from jail on illegal furloughs and White persuaded Rogoway to lie about her ability to identify Sanders. 16 Sanders argues that he does not have to show that the prosecution knew or should have known the testimony was false to prove a constitutional violation, but he does not cite any clearly established Supreme Court precedent for this point. Even if Sanders is not required to prove prosecutorial knowledge, his Mooney-Napue claims fail because he has not shown that any of the eyewitness testimony was false, as explained in detail below. SANDERS V. CULLEN 27 1. Changes in Rogoway’s Identification Testimony Over Time In the immediate aftermath of the crime, while Rogoway was still in the hospital, she selected photograph No. 132 from the CRASH book (the photo of the man named David Hall) as the taller robber. She initially stated that No. 132 “looked like the tall suspect,” but, upon further questioning, she stated that No. 132 “was the tall suspect.” (Emphasis added). By the time of Sanders’s trial, Rogoway could not remember whether she selected anyone from the CRASH book. Rogoway was given morphine for pain during the initial stage of her treatment, and likely was taking morphine when she viewed the CRASH book. Rogoway did not attend the live lineup on December 23, 1980 because she was still hospitalized, but she viewed a videotape of the lineup on January 2, 1981. The lineup card she used to record her impressions was lost sometime after February 1981 and she gave conflicting testimony at Sanders’s preliminary hearing and trial about whether she selected anyone when she watched the videotape. At the preliminary hearing, Deputy District Attorney Giss asked a series of questions about Freeman’s preliminary hearing and lineup, and then asked “Now, you never picked anyone out of any video tape line-ups; is that correct?” Rogoway answered: “I don’t believe so.” Her response was consistent with the uncontested fact that she did not select Freeman from the lineup. At the end of Rogoway’s testimony, the blackboard was moved so that it no longer blocked Sanders, and Giss asked whether Rogoway could positively identify him as “one of the two individuals involved with the incident that evening.” She answered, “Yes . . . . He was there.” 28 SANDERS V. CULLEN Outside the presence of the jury, the court held a California Evidence Code section 402 hearing regarding the loss of Rogoway’s lineup card.17 Officer Wesselink testified that he was present on January 2 when Rogoway viewed the videotape, that he was responsible for collecting her lineup card and that he recalled Rogoway selected Sanders. Detective Jacques also testified that he recorded Rogoway’s selection in the police log after seeing the lineup card, and similarly recalled that Rogoway picked Sanders. The police log states “videotape of lineups shown to Rogoway and Irvin at [Police Administrative Building]. Both picked Sanders. Neither picked Freeman.” Rogoway testified at the 402 hearing that she selected someone from one of the two lines as the taller robber. During trial, Rogoway watched the videotape of the lineup again and testified that she selected Sanders as the taller robber when she originally saw the tape on January 2, 1981. She further stated that she was “pretty certain” about the identification on January 2. In the courtroom, before the jury, she identified Sanders as the taller robber. The record shows that Rogoway’s in-court identifications of Sanders, at his preliminary hearing and at trial, did not change. She testified inconsistently about whether she selected anyone at the video lineup, but Wesselink’s and Jacques’s testimony at the 402 hearing suggests that it is more likely that she misunderstood Giss’s question at the preliminary hearing than that she gave false, or even inconsistent, testimony. Giss asked Rogoway whether she 17 California Evidence Code section 402(b) permits a California trial court to “hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury . . . .” SANDERS V. CULLEN 29 ever selected anyone at the lineups after asking her a series of questions about Freeman’s preliminary hearing and video lineup. According to the police log, she did not make a selection. The state court could have reasonably determined that Rogoway’s identification testimony did not change and that Rogoway thought Giss was only inquiring whether she selected Freeman from a lineup. More to the point, in order to prevail on these Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, Sanders would have to show that Rogoway gave false testimony, not just that she testified inconsistently over time. This he did not do. 2. Leslie White’s Impact on Rogoway’s Identification Testimony Sanders argues that Rogoway changed her identification testimony due to Leslie White’s influence during illegal furloughs. This argument fails because it does not account for Rogoway’s identification of Sanders at his preliminary hearing, before she began her relationship with White. The furloughs took place between October and December 1981. White testified that his relationship with Rogoway lasted for three months coinciding with the period when he was at the Long Beach City Jail in the fall of 1981. There is no evidence in the record that Rogoway had any interactions with White prior to the time she viewed the lineup on January 2, 1981, or before her identification of him at the preliminary hearing in March 1981. At a sidebar during Sanders’s trial, Deputy District Attorney Giss told the court that Rogoway’s visit to Chino State Prison with Gina Gutierrez—which led to her introduction to Leslie White—took place some time after Sanders’s preliminary hearing. 30 SANDERS V. CULLEN White testified before the grand jury investigating the jailhouse-informant scandal that he told Rogoway false, detrimental information about Sanders during his furloughs, but this could not have influenced the preliminary hearing testimony she had already given, and her identification of Sanders at the preliminary hearing was consistent with her identification of him at trial. Sanders has not shown that Rogoway changed her identification of Sanders, or that White could have influenced her pre-trial identification of Sanders. The state court also could have reasonably rejected this Mooney-Napue claim because Sanders did not show the prosecution knowingly offered false testimony. Sanders points to a note obtained from the District Attorney post-trial pursuant to the Public Records Act and argues that Giss knowingly allowed Rogoway to give false testimony. The handwritten note, allegedly authored by Giss, states: “Les had a conjugal visit with Tami. One regular visit (no forms – police escort).” At best, the note shows that the prosecution was aware of the relationship between White and Rogoway, but that much is clear; Giss testified about the relationship at the pretrial discovery hearing on February 24, 1982. It does not indicate that the prosecution knew, or even suspected, that Rogoway’s identification testimony was false. It is also possible the state court reasonably determined that Rogoway’s identification testimony was not pivotal in the context of the State’s overall case because Michael Malloy’s eyewitness testimony was much stronger. Malloy was the night manager on duty at the time of the robbery and he had a much longer opportunity to observe the taller robber while removing money from the safe and collecting the victims’ wallets, watches, and jewelry. Malloy testified at trial that he “got a good three minute look” at the taller robber SANDERS V. CULLEN 31 while they were in the office getting money from the safe, and that he stared at the robber for roughly half that time. Malloy never wavered in his identification of Sanders and he was a more prominent part of the state’s case, testifying over the course of eight days. The prosecutor also relied heavily on Malloy’s testimony during closing argument. It would not have been unreasonable for the state court to decide that the jury would have convicted Sanders, even without Rogoway’s testimony, based solely on the strength of Malloy’s identification.