The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-1524•Roderick Duane Lewis v. Jeri Ann Sherry
08-1524Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitMar 15, 2010
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 10a0154n.06
No. 08-1524
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RODERICK DUANE LEWIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JERI ANN SHERRY,
Respondent-Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN
/
Before: MARTIN, SILER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Roderick Lewis appeals five issues for which the district court denied his
motion for habeas relief: (1) admission of identification; (2) suppression of evidence; (3) jury
instructions and communications; (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (5) ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel. Having reviewed the briefs and record and heard oral argument, we
find no reversible error warranting the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.
But this is not to say that there was no legal error committed. Though we agree with the
majority of the district court’s conclusions, Lewis v. Sherry, No. 05-74202, 2007 WL 4591299 (E.D.
Mich. Dec. 28, 2007), Lewis v. Sherry, No. 05-74202, 2007 WL 1585641 (E.D. Mich. June 1, 2007),
we must disagree with its conclusion that the identification was not unduly suggestive. Lewis, 2007
WL 1585641. The full circumstances associated with the identification—a line-up with few
similarities among the participants; a pre-lineup sighting of the accused which showed a new,
-- 1 of 2 --
distinctive characteristic; that only the accused had the distinctive characteristic; and the knowledge
that the accused was definitely in the line-up—demonstrate that this line-up was unduly suggestive.
However, while the state courts and the district court erred in finding that the line-up was not unduly
suggestive, the witness’ identification of Lewis was nonetheless reliable under the factors outlined
in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 196-97 (1972). Therefore, the state court’s admission of the
identification was not an unreasonable application of federal law.
We therefore DENY Lewis’ petition.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.