Document: 449 U.S. 539 101 S.Ct. 764 66 L.Ed.2d 722 George SUMNER, Warden, Petitioner,v.Robert MATA. No. 79-1601. Argued Dec. 9, 1980. Decided Jan. 21, 1981. Syllabus Respondent was convicted of first-degree murder in a California state court after trial at which eyewitnesses identified him as participating the murder. The Court Appeal affirmed, rejecting respondent's contention, made for first time, that pretrial photographic identification employed by police violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. concluded upon review record "the facts present case" did not adequately support claim. seek Supreme Court, but later raised issue habeas corpus proceedings, resulted denial relief court, Appeal, and Court. then sought federal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Federal District denied petition. United States Appeals, employing same standard used courts, reversed. On basis findings considerably odds with reviewing state-court record, so impermissibly suggestive give rise very substantial likelihood irreparable misidentification. Appeals' opinion refer 2254(d), provides proceedings instituted prisoner "a determination hearing on merits factual issue" competent jurisdiction "evidenced written finding, opinion, or other reliable adequate indicia, shall be presumed correct" unless one seven specified conditions is found exist concludes relevant "is fairly supported record." Held : Appeals properly analyze challenge conviction, given limited nature provided courts 2254. Pp. 543-552. (a) Section 2254(d) applies determinations whether an appellate court. held "hearing" within meaning since both respondent State were formally before opportunity heard, claim received plenary consideration. interest federalism recognized Congress enacting requires deference all this true particularly case such where makes its based identical considered there no reason consider because failed raise it level. 545-547. (b) Given applicability case, apparent whose gave indication 2254 even considered, applied "presumption correctness" mandated statute When could dispense embodied therein contemplated least some reasoned references (not here) findings. 547-549. (c) In providing absent any enumerated factors, burden rests petitioner establish "by convincing evidence erroneous," meant insure finding overturned merely usual "preponderance evidence" standard. To ensure mandate enforced, should include granting writ reasoning led conclude factors present, "not 550-552. 9 Cir., 611 F.2d 754, vacated remanded. Thomas A. Brady, San Francisco, Cal., petitioner. Ezra Hendon, respondent. Justice REHNQUIST delivered 1 A divided Ninth Circuit conviction constitutionally invalid. Its holding has two bases: (1) procedure "so in-court misidentification [respondent]"; (2) admission "constituted error constitutional dimension." 755 (1979). question us analyzed 2 * 1973, Superior Kern County, fellow inmates correctional institution. At trial, three witnesses testified they had witnessed part attack inmate offered alibi who bed time stabbing occurred. point object State's eyewitnesses. 3 direct appeal claimed law guaranteed Constitution. contention under test earlier enunciated Simmons v. States, 390 377, 88 967, 19 1247 (1968). explained each must own violation will occur set aside only if rejected language: 4 "Reviewing determine particular contained proscribed characteristics, we find photographs available cross-examination purposes trial. We further showing influence investigating officers[;] view crime; their descriptions are accurate. circumstances thus indicate inherent fairness procedure, evidence." App. Pet. Cert. C-4—C-5 5 Appeal's decision He did, however, proceedings. relief. 6 December 1977, filed petition Northern again issue. May 23, 1978, appealed order Circuit. 7 misidentification." F.2d, 759. This conclusion based, inter alia, court's surrounding witnesses' observation crime grave misidentification; sufficiently detailed assailant; (3) considerable pressure from prison officials factions been brought bear witnesses. Id., 758-759. II 8 Appeal. Both neither indicated completely base If simply run-of-the-mine reached opposite unitary judicial system, would little invocation Court's discretionary make third But unfortunately smooth functioning our consists 50 systems national case. Instead, presents important questions regarding role played exercise conferred them 10 It long established, those issues may single judge overturn judgment highest insofar deals application Constitution laws question. As might imagined, result easily arrived Habeas Corpus Act 1867, predecessor doctrine, adumbrated Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 43 265, 67 L.Ed. 543 (1923), culminating Fay Noia, 372 391, 83 822, 837 (1963), 1867 allows collateral attack. 11 asserts reaching majority observe certain limitations authority specifically forth 2254(d). provides: 12 "(d) proceeding person custody issue, applicant officer agent thereof parties, evidenced correct, otherwise appear, admit— 13 "(1) dispute resolved hearing; 14 "(2) factfinding afford full fair 15 "(3) material developed 16 "(4) lacked subject matter over proceeding; 17 "(5) indigent deprivation right, appoint counsel represent 18 "(6) receive full, fair, "(7) 20 "(8) made, pertinent sufficiency determination, produced hereinafter, consideration whole record: 21 "And evidentiary when proof existence more respectively paragraphs numbered (7), inclusive, shown applicant, appears, admitted respondent, provisions paragraph (8) proceeding, whole, does rest erroneous." 22 obvious literal reading above applicable situation although contended opposed We, refuse read limitation into 2254(d).1 Admittedly, here record. Nevertheless, clearly heard though he After presented Since requested do think now assert 23 cases issue." distinction between Nor specify procedural requirements satisfied "hearing issue," than parties indicia." terms Cf. Swenson Stidham, 409 224, 230, 93 359, 363, 34 431 (1972). courts. See Souza Howard, 488 462 (CA1 1973). fact, declined rule "identification" have altogether barred considering "cause" "prejudice." Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 97 2497, 53 594 (1977). 24 apply Indeed, 2254(d).2 Last Term certiorari Lombard Taylor, 445 946, 100 1346, 63 781 (1980), New York prosecutor Second Circuit, 606 371. That action victim knowing use perjured testimony reversed refusal grant writ. course awareness examination documentary relied, expressly contrary entitled Taylor Lombard, 371, 375 approach instant quite different. reference previous sentence "[t]he Petition followed appellant's exhaustion remedies." 755. From statement, went directly discussion "facts" claims. 25 Undoubtedly, need elaborate reasons claims regards frivolous totally without merit. This, here. contrary, conflict every exact Reading conjunction clear implicitly relied through decision. impossible tell gives considered. 26 Obviously, appeals inserted boilerplate objection made. Just obviously, frustration intent Reference can Rule 52 Rules Civil Procedure district following bench "find specially separately conclusions thereon. . ." common knowledge occasions take fact prepared party whom close prevail alteration adopt own. However, requirement imposed undoubtedly aware imprimatur placed law, whoever prepare them. judges well swear allegiance frequent differences opinions how document interpreted, doing mortal best discharge oath office. 27 source friction obviously alleviate enacted subsection (d) 1966 amendment original 1867. Accordingly, content frustrated. amendment, few opportunities address various (d), never context similar See, e. g., Cuyler Sullivan, 446 335, 1708, 64 333 (1980); LaVallee Delle Rose, 410 690, 1203, 35 637 (1973). issued behest effect overturning either legal system stands convicted, likely result. line previously referred accepted necessary consequence adopting intended minimize inevitable also "shall none exist, thehabeas "fairly record," (Emphasis supplied.)3 Although arising much different context, recent language Addington Texas, 441 418, 99 1804, 60 323 (1979), bearing here: 29 "The function proof, concept Due Process Clause realm factfinding, 'instruct factfinder concerning degree confidence society thinks correctness type adjudication.' re Winship, 397 358, 370 [90 1068, 1076, 368] (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). serves allocate risk litigants relative importance attached ultimate decision." 423, S.Ct., 1808. 30 absence eight, petitioner, run entire gamut Thus, situation. hold Such statement tying generalities hand not, think, unduly prevent "boilerplate" adverted. Moreover, value enabling satisfy themselves congressional complied with. No left guess notwithstanding Greater Boston Television Corp. FCC, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 444 841, 851 (1970). 31 Having said this, understood agreeing disagreeing procedures. basic analysis. Applying test, Assuredly nor last occur. sort explanation accordingly vacated, remanded consistent opinion. 32 ordered. 33 BLACKMUN concurs vacate remand reconsideration light BRENNAN, MARSHALL STEVENS join, dissenting. 36 holds today requiring release retrial violations explain why bar re-examination decided courts—even contest ground plainly inapplicable decisions I dissent. 37 another prisoner, largely strength penitentiary. Two these photo arrays occasions, "obvious 758 testimony. argued rights defined merits, it. 38 petitions Finally, California, raising return opposition corpus, precluded re-examining virtue accords presumption findings, exceptions here.1 referring abandoned argument. Petitioner motion rehearing suggestion en banc, including one-sentence argument motions discussion. 39 cannot join my Brethren concluding failure discuss timely stating bound defer judgment. Ante, 551. therefore vacates briefs admits merit." 548. add that, except exceptional circumstances, search universe been—but not—made losing party. dockets severe enough already, raise, research, deemed justify mention briefs. 40 agree today's "ensure [§ 2254(d)] enforced," ante, 551; rather, seen invitation lower "inser[t] paragraph" acknowledging 549.2 useless disruptive. III 41 disposition perplexing constitutes (emphasis supplied). "basic, primary, historical facts: 'in sense recital external events credibility narrators. .' " 342, 1714, (1980) (quoting Townsend Sain, 293, 309, n.6, 745, 755, 770 (1963)). mixed principles case." U.S., 1715; see Brewer Williams, 430 387, 403-404, 1232, 1241, 51 424 42 What disregard? conduct procedures, My reveal disagreement fact." treatment brief way formal crime"; "there officers"; "descriptions accurate." C-4 C-5. explicitly agreed "an perpetrators crime," 758, disagreed court'slegal adequate, "diversion attention committed." Similarly, description lineup differs significant detail Compareid., 756, C-3 C-4. procedure," id., C-5, while conclusion. like accuracy identifications, detail. 758. using array rather necessary, 757. 44 Plainly, significance themselves. Whether witness' "adequate" purposes, raises possibility serious violate standards, dispel doubt about procedures imposed, necessity examples law. addressed required 'application found,' supra, 403, 1242 Brown Allen, 344 443, 507, 73 397, 437, 446, 469 (1953) (opinion Frankfurter, J.)), fall outside 45 held, one, allegedly elemental them." Neil Biggers, 188, 193, n.3, 375, 379, 401 1714 (conclusion lawyers undertook multiple representation "factual" 2254(d)); 395-397, 402-404, 1237, 1241 defendant waived right 2254(d)). 46 Sixth applying "totality circumstances" (1968), prisoner's reversed, dissent claiming violating "long-established practice reverse concurred 202, 383 (BRENNAN, joined DOUGLAS STEWART, JJ., dissenting). dissenters' undisputed primary constitute finding. n.3. indistinguishable. cruelly ironic constitutionality favor incarceration unconstitutional reject vindicate 47 contends "Ninth Circuit's erroneous proper lead [respondent] trial." Brief 49 supplied); 14.3 petitioner's reveals difference standard, And surely detract well-established duty "to independently." 318, 760. not—indeed, not—defer interpretation Ibid.; 543-544.4 understand "[i]t 545. me, just applicable. IV 48 portions precedents Appeals. denies entitled. justice respectfully reserved 341, n.5, (1980). Courts extensive analysis, differing "determination[s] Compare Drayton Hayes, 589 117, 122, n.9 (CA2 1979); White Finkbeiner, 570 194, 201 (CA7 1978), remand, 186 (1979); Payne Cardwell, 436 577 (CA6 1971); Hill Nelson, 466 1348 (CA9 1972), 1973); ex rel. Harris Illinois, 457 191 1972). premised "abandoned" brief. Post, 554. Presumably mean imply conceded regard determinations, instead rely determinations. directed outcome codification successor courts," Preiser Rodriguez, 411 475, 485, 1827, 1833, 439 (1973), amendments jurisdiction. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. Mottley, 211 149, 152, 42, 43, 126 (1908), repeatedly reaffirmed, "it [C]ourt [district court], statute, exceeded." benefit briefing doctrine Mottley deciding addition minimizing "friction" individual criminal "in insuring certainty comes end litigation, ultimately focused free restored useful place community." Sanders 373 1, 24-25, 1081, 148 (1963) Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 262, 2041, 2065, 854 (1973) (POWELL, 544-545. 371 1979), cert. denied, sustained announced today. 547-548. sole conclusory statement: County perjury deference. 2254(d)(8)." 375. know correctly manifested "full awareness" 548, nevertheless "left [us] [its] 2254(d)." 552. presume fully prominent leave devote energies writing contested issues. particular, argues displays precedents. 31. display factor judging validity lack per se identification. 757; Calhoun, 542 1094, 1104 1976), 429 1064, 792, displays, C-5; People Suttle, 90 Cal.App.3d 572, 580-581, 153 Cal.Rptr. 409, 414-415 suggest, it, falls exception general principle Stone Powell, 428 465, 96 3037, 1067 (1976).

Category: 0