Opinion ID: 2741343
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Due Process Right to Present a Complete Defense

Text: ¶26. Howell maintains that the State’s misrepresentations about counsel being present at the lineup denied him the due process right to present a complete defense. He claims that the State’s case hinged on a single piece of evidence – Rice’s identification. Howell argues that, because the jury assumed an attorney was at the lineup, the jury had no reason to believe the lineup was not proper. Thus, Howell claims that he was denied the opportunity to put on a complete defense because, had he known counsel was not present at the lineup, he would have used that to impeach Rice’s identification “with the actual presumptive unfairness of not having an attorney present.” Howell does not cite any authority for the argument. ¶27. Again, it is not clear how the lack of an attorney at the lineup would discredit Rice’s testimony. There was ample testimony from Rice and others about the lineup. See Howell, 860 So. 2d at 728-29 (¶¶ 82-86). The Court has held that the lineup was not unduly suggestive and that Rice’s identification was reliable. Id. at 731 (¶ 92); Howell II, 989 So. 2d at 381 (¶ 24). As discussed above, the lack of an attorney at the lineup is not sufficient to impeach Rice’s testimony because the lineup was proper, Rice was certain about his identification, and Rice would not be the proper witness to testify about the presence of an attorney at the lineup.