Legal Document

455 U.S. 591 102 Supreme Court Reporter 1303 71 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 480 George SUMNER, Wardenv.Robert MATA. Number 81-844. March 22, 1982. PER CURIAM. 1 This is the second time that this matter has come before us. In Summer versus Mata, 449 539, 101 764, 66 722 (1981), decided last Term, we held 28 Code KF62 § 2254(d) requires federal courts in habeas proceedings to accord a presumption of correctness state-court findings fact. requirement could not be plainer. The statute explicitly provides "a determination after hearing on merits factual issue, made by State court competent jurisdiction . ., shall presumed correct." Only when one seven specified factors present or determines finding fact "is fairly supported record" may properly viewed as inapplicable rebutted.1 2 We further equally applicable state appellate court, opposed trial makes fact, and if concludes does control, it must provide written explanation reasoning led conclude more first listed were present, "reasoning which was 'not record.' " U.S., at 551, S.Ct., 771. 3 Applying these general principles case hand, found our decision Term Appeals for Ninth Circuit had neither applied nor explained why not. See Mata Sumner, 611 Federal Reporter, 2nd 754 (C.A.9 1979). Instead, "considerably odds" with California Appeal without any mention whatsoever 2254(d). 543, 767. 4 reaching conclusion followed 2254(d), rejected argument, advanced respondent conflict.2 convicted 1973 first-degree murder fellow inmate. There three witnesses murder, each whom identified participant killing.3 On appeal Appeal, argued photographic lineup procedure used police so impermissibly suggestive deprive him due process. After examining evidence,4 assertion. It concluded pretrial procedures been unfair under test stated Simmons States, 390 377, 88 967, 19 1247 (1968): 5 "Reviewing facts determine particular identification contained proscribed characteristics, find photographs available cross-examination purposes trial. there no showing influence investigating officers: an adequate opportunity view crime; their descriptions are accurate. circumstances thus indicate inherent fairness procedure, error admission evidence." App. Pet. Certiorari C-8. 6 reached different conclusion,5 did basis factfindings clearly conflict those court. noted relied, inter alia, its own conflicting "(1) surrounding witnesses' observation crime such grave likelihood misidentification; (2) failed give sufficiently detailed assailant; (3) considerable pressure from both prison officials factions brought bear witnesses." Sumner 767.6 "findings considerably odds Appeal." Ibid. remanded review issue either apply statutory explain light expressed whether suggestive. That question decide instance complying 7 remand, necessary should applied. 649 713 (C.A.9, 1981). Rather, agreeing argument dissenting opinion supra, simply irrelevant because way differed court.7 disagreement "over legal constitutional significance certain facts" over themselves. F.2d, 716. mixed law apply. And reinstated therefore entitled release new trial.8 8 have again reviewed apparently misunderstood terms remand. Nor comply requirements agree ultimate constitutionality governed 2254(d).9 deciding question, weight reach standard. But questions underlie earlier clear. Thus, observe too distracted; gave detailed, accurate description; others all applies.10 9 Of course, necessarily bound court's findings. Section permits conclude, example, "not record." require face up defer unless found. Although distinction between always easily drawn, deal here show high measure deference courts. To adopt Appeals' would command important significance. 10 Our remand directed re-examine presumption. pointed identifying considered Appeal. asked statute. neither. Accordingly, Again note "we understood disagreeing majority procedures." 552, 772.11 11 motion leave proceed forma pauperis granted. petition writ certiorari granted, judgment vacated, consistent opinion. 12 So ordered. 13 Justice BRENNAN, MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 14 my view, only accords views & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions which, points out, ante, 595, n. 6, prevail, but also Court's restated today. dissent second, summary,* vacation. 15 When us unnecessary failure consider restrictions "the difference standard, case," rendering obviously inapplicable. 558-559, 774, (1981). disagreed, holding cases inapplicable: "No reviewing grant application corpus left guess reasons granting relief notwithstanding provisions 2254(d)." 772. thought then, today agrees, "impermissibly suggestive," 384, 971, (1968). Ante, 597. 16 explicit recognition govern renders confounding disposition. Following directive clarified original opinion: "substantially agree[d] 'historical' 'basic' adduced Appeal," disagreed facts," "legal conclusion" 713, 716-717 17 can interpret vacation evincing suspicion Appeals, despite protestations contrary, actually relied inconsistent distinguish subsidiary unfairness manifest. reason think, borrowing declaration that, opinion, judges doing mortal best discharge oath office." 549, 770. 18 disbelieving assurance accepted granted employed were, law, unconstitutional. affirm Appeals. STEVENS, 20 Once preoccupation procedural niceties needlessly complicated disposition petition. Cf. Rose Lundy, 509, 1198, 379. Lurking background conduct bearing validity identification. day confront question. For however, concerned misunderstanding ill-defined mandate 722, 21 now seem applies "basic, primary, historical fact" "mixed fact." articulation proposition certainly improvement understandably confounded Judge Sneed read—incorrectly, turns out—the panel read—correctly, facts. implicated correct. difficult than per curiam BRENNAN's indicates.* Indeed, difficulty analysis behooves "poin[t] way" extensive reasoned fashion rely upon good faith sense applying rather straightforward principle even though might unclear. merely delays, sake nicety, consideration significant petitioner raised. respectfully summary provides: "(d) proceeding instituted person custody pursuant applicant officer agent thereof parties, evidenced finding, other reliable indicia, correct, establish otherwise appear, admit— dispute resolved hearing; "(2) factfinding afford full fair "(3) material adequately developed "(4) lacked subject proceeding; "(5) indigent deprivation his right, appoint counsel represent "(6) receive full, fair, "(7) denied process "(8) part record made, pertinent sufficiency evidence support determination, produced provided hereinafter, whole record: evidentiary proof existence respectively set forth paragraphs numbered (1) (7), inclusive, shown applicant, appears, admitted respondent, paragraph (8) proceeding, whole, burden rest convincing erroneous." Respondent argued: "All [of Appeals] drawn do contradict primary Brief Respondent, O.T.1980, 79-1601, Pages 19-20. Two inmates—Salvadore Vargas David Gallegos—were taking murder. summarized follows: "Three inmate testified they saw stabbing take place. All three—Childress, Almengor, Allen—identified defendants number Tehachapi inmates attempt identify slayers. Almengor interviewed photos October 19, 1972, incident. He possible appellant Vargas, misidentifications two participants. 30, recent presented he appellants. 27, Allen make old. date Childress selected appellants him. "Appellants argue housed same segregation unit appellants, aware removed pictures taken inadmissible. showing, supports none, influenced action officers." C-4 C-6. direct levels District proceedings. BRENNAN killing "quite likely" distracted killing. given "accurate" detailed. Finally, appears law. 556, 773. obvious persuasive. adopted views. 716 "Lest 'be guess' reiterate: As indicates substantially Fifth Appellate District. disagree, standard totality case." Id., 717. dissented decision, "respectfully, some degree sorrowfully." Cuyler Sullivan, 446 335, 100 1708, 64 333 (1980); Brewer Williams, 430 387, 97 1232, 51 424 (1977); Neil Biggers, 409 188, 193, 3, 93 375, 379, 34 401 (1972). 199-200, 382, evaluating misidentification include witness criminal crime, witness' attention, accuracy prior description criminal, level certainty demonstrated confrontation, length confrontation." Each "factors" applies. violation Because proper determining constitutionally defective. * lower misunderstands instances appropriate candidate reversal, case, where unanimous agreement complied with, reverse plenary consideration. worked record. brief "that accurate." analyzed greater detail. although fight among perpetrators "would least crime[,] violence accompanying incident threat knife have, quite likely, diverted attention"; assailants descriptions"; "considerable officers opposing admittedly 754, 758-759 (1979). Putting aside problem separating answers mostly ineffectual exercise sets conflicting. supplement, contradict, roughly corresponding third "no influence," fully reference overlooked ignored. better referring explanation. 2254(d)(8). event, since benefit judge who heard evidence, strange use scarce resources trivial differences courts' analyses

Classification Label: 0