Lockhart v. Brown

Second Circuit

Lockhart v. Brown

354 F. App'x 457

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 2009

DocketNo. 08-3191-pr

StatusPublished

This text of 354 F. App'x 457 (Lockhart v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lockhart v. Brown, 354 F. App'x 457 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-Appellant John Lockhart appeals from the district court’s June 10, 2008 decision and order denying, inter alia, Petitioner’s motion for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 based on the claim that the complainant witness’s show-up identification of the petitioner was unnecessarily suggestive. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and specification of issues on appeal.

After reviewing the issues on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court in its thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion and order addressing the pre-trial identification issue, Lockhart v. Brown, No. 9:05-cv-1166, 2008 WL 2397609, at *4-7 (N.D.N.Y. June 10, 2008). The state trial court and the Appellate Division decisions with respect to the issues of witness identification presented by this case were not “contrary to,” nor did they “involve[] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Dunlap v. Burge, 583 F.3d 160, 165-66 (2d Cir.2009) (recognizing that the interaction of general constitutional rules governing pretrial identification procedures and the deferential standard of habeas review “affords significant discretion to the state court”).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-Appellant John Lockhart appeals from the district court’s June 10, 2008 decision and order denying, inter alia, Petitioner’s motion for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 based on the claim that the complainant witness’s show-up identification of the petitioner was unnecessarily suggestive. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and specification of issues on appeal.

After reviewing the issues on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court in its thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion and order addressing the pre-trial identification issue, Lockhart v. Brown, No. 9:05-cv-1166, 2008 WL 2397609, at *4-7 (N.D.N.Y. June 10, 2008). The state trial court and the Appellate Division decisions with respect to the issues of witness identification presented by this case were not “contrary to,” nor did they “involve[] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Dunlap v. Burge, 583 F.3d 160, 165-66 (2d Cir.2009) (recognizing that the interaction of general constitutional rules governing pretrial identification procedures and the deferential standard of habeas review “affords significant discretion to the state court”).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 F. App'x 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockhart-v-brown-ca2-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack