Robert Mata v. George Sumner

Robert Mata (“appellant”) appeals from the District Court’s denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Petition followed the appellant’s conviction of murder in a California state court and his exhaustion of all available state court remedies.

We reverse the District Court’s Order upon the basis of our conclusion that state authorities violated rights given to the appellant by the federal Constitution. First, the pre-trial photographic identification procedure employed by state police was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable in-court misidentification of the appellant. Second, the admission of the in-court identification constituted error of constitutional dimension.

FACTS

This case involved a homicide at the medium security prison, C.C.I., Tehachapi, California, on October 19, 1972. The prosecution’s case was based chiefly on the theory that the homicide was a result of feuding between opposing prison factions — the “Mexican Mafia” and the “Nuestra Family.” The homicide victim, Leonard Arias, was represented to have been a member of the “Nuestra Family.” Prior to being transferred to Tehachapi, Arias had…

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent.

The majority concludes that there was “a systematic plan by prison officers to twist a photographic identification procedure in a manner calculated to obtain an identification of one they suspect”; that there was no necessity to use photographic identification procedures; and that the procedures employed here created a grave likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Fortified by my examination of the photographs employed on October 27, 1972 and October 30, 1972 and the fact that, leaving aside the direct appeal process, three courts of the State of California (Superior Court of Marin County, Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, and Supreme Court of California) and one federal court (District Court, Northern District of California) have failed to discern the “systematic plan” and to reach the conclusions so easily arrived at by the majority, I conclude that the procedures employed did not contravene the Simmons test as interpreted by this circuit.

In addition, I suggest that the application of the Simmons test in habeas corpus proceedings should be somewhat less rigorous than is the case in direct appeals from federal convictions.…

611 F.2d 754 Robert MATA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George SUMNER, Respondent-Appellee. No. 78-2636. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Dec. 21, 1979. Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1980. Leonard D. Stein, San Francisco, Cal., argued for petitioner-appellant; Dennis P. Riordan, San Francisco, Cal., on brief. Jamie Jacobs-May, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before ELY and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and TAKASUGI, * District Judge. ELY, Circuit Judge: 1 Robert Mata ("appellant") appeals from the District Court's denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Petition followed the appellant's conviction of murder in a California state court and his exhaustion of all available state court remedies. 2 We reverse the District Court's Order upon the basis of our conclusion that state authorities violated rights given to the appellant by the federal Constitution. First, the pre-trial photographic identification procedure employed by state police was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable in-court…