Vernon Shaw, III v. R. Kirkland

MEMORANDUM

Vernon Shaw appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The case is reviewed under the deferential standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

Shaw’s claim that the identifications of David and Darwin Brown were unconstitutionally suggestive fails because he cannot show prejudice. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). Even if Darwin Brown had been led by unconstitutional means to identify Shaw, there were three other identifications in the case. That David Brown equivocated was a matter for the jury’s consideration, as were Robert Horn’s bias and Clayton Brown’s inconsistent descriptions of the suspect. See Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 116 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). In light of these three identifications, the California court did not act unreasonably in denying relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Shaw’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails for largely the same reasons. Shaw cannot show that the suppression of Darwin Brown’s identification would have produced a different outcome in his…