Pope

Pope v. White

Good Law
184 F. App'x 606
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 8, 2006No. 04-17029California856 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Henry Frank Pope appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Because Pope’s petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), to qualify for habeas relief, he must demonstrate that the state court’s determination resulted in an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or that the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). We benchmark each claim against this standard, and we affirm.

I. Pre-Trial Identification

Controlling Supreme Court law holds that pre-trial identification procedures violate due process where: (1) the identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive, and (2) the reliability of the identification, based on the totality of circumstances, does not outweigh the cor *608 rupting effect of the suggestive procedures. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). Though the lineup was not a model of uniformity, four of the five subjects in the lineup…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.