Court Opinion

ID: 9467976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:00:57.5633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:37.035565
License: Public Domain

SNEED, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
For the second time in this case I respectfully, and to some degree sorrowfully, dissent.
It is obvious to me that the majority opinion in Sumner v. Mata, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 764, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981), treated the issue whether the photographic identification was impermissibly suggestive as a finding entitled to the “ ‘presumption of correctness’ which is mandated by the statute [28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)] to the factual determinations made by the California state courts.” -U.S. at-, 101 S.Ct. at 769. It is equally obvious that Justice Brennan’s dissenting opinion in Sumner v. Mata, supra, treated the same issue as not entitled to the presumption afforded by section 2254(d) because it was not one of fact but rather one concerning the “constitutional significance of the facts.” -U.S.-, 101 S.Ct. at 774.
*718Judge Ely, speaking for the majority of this court, has adopted Justice Brennan’s characterizations of the issue of impermissible suggestiveness. I cannot join in this disregard of the Supreme Court’s authority.
On the merits I would remand this case to the district court to permit Mata another opportunity to rebut the presumption of correctness of the finding of the California Court of Appeal with respect to impermissible suggestiveness. As the record presently stands that presumption has not been rebutted. Presumably the Supreme Court also considered it unrebutted because to conclude otherwise is to characterize their opinion as but an hortatory essay and their remand as a futile act. I cannot join in such characterizations.