Anderson v. Janssen

Background

Andre Verlin Anderson sought federal habeas corpus relief, meaning a federal court order setting aside allegedly unlawful state custody or convictions. A Minnesota jury convicted Anderson of aiding and abetting attempted second-degree murder, aiding and abetting first-degree assault, and aiding and abetting theft of a motor vehicle. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.

The federal case concerned the eyewitness identification of Anderson. After C.J. was stabbed, police showed C.J. a photograph array containing a 2011 booking photograph of Anderson, who was clean-shaven and had short hair. C.J. did not identify anyone from that array. Two days later, police showed C.J. another array containing a more recent photograph of Anderson, in which he had a beard and moderately longer hair. C.J. identified Anderson. Anderson was the only person whose photograph appeared in both arrays.

Report and Recommendation and objections

United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel recommended granting Anderson’s petition and vacating his Minnesota convictions. Warden Vicki Janssen filed timely objections, arguing that the photographic-identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive and that C.J.’s identification was reliable under the circumstances.

Because the warden filed specific objections, the district court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently, rather than simply accepting the magistrate judge’s conclusions. The district court could accept, reject, or modify the recommendation in whole or in part.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal court may grant relief from a state-court decision on the merits only if the state court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court described this as a demanding standard requiring more than showing that the state court was merely wrong. The state court’s decision must have been objectively unreasonable and so lacking in justification that fair-minded judges could not disagree about the error.

The court applied the two-part identification test from Simmons v. United States and Neil v. Biggers. First, it considered whether the identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive that it created a substantial risk of mistaken identification. If that threshold was met, the court would then consider whether the identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances.

Analysis

The Minnesota Court of Appeals had concluded that the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive. It reasoned that the two photographs of Anderson were distinctively different, that the photographs showed reasonably similar individuals, and that the record did not show the officer attempted to influence C.J. Although a double-blind identification procedure was preferred, the Minnesota court found no evidence that the officer pressured C.J. to make an identification.

Judge Wright held that the Minnesota Court of Appeals’s conclusion was not objectively unreasonable. The court noted that Anderson’s appearance differed between the photographs, the cropping of the other photographs was not identical, and the arrays featured similar-looking people. The record also did not suggest that C.J. was pressured or influenced. Because the state court’s conclusion on the first part of the identification test was reasonable, the district court did not analyze the second part concerning reliability under the totality of the circumstances.

The court also stated that mere disagreement with the Minnesota Court of Appeals’s analysis did not justify federal habeas relief.

Disposition

The court sustained Warden Janssen’s objections, rejected the August 9, 2018 Report and Recommendation, and denied Anderson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.