Parker v. Lee

Background

Latwoine Parker, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person in state custody to seek federal review of a state conviction. A jury convicted Parker on July 8, 2014, of second-degree murder and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The conviction relied in part on testimony from two witnesses who identified Parker as the shooter.

Parker raised two remaining grounds for relief: he argued that the trial court should have suppressed Carpenter’s identification testimony because admitting it violated due process, and he argued that the prosecutor made improper comments during closing argument. Parker originally raised an additional claim concerning the State’s disclosure obligations, but later withdrew it because it had not been exhausted in state court.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and Review

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended denying the petition in a March 11, 2020 Report and Recommendation. Parker timely objected, but the objections repeated the factual and legal arguments he had already made. Judge Daniels therefore reviewed the unchallenged or inadequately challenged portions of the report for clear error, meaning a clear mistake apparent from the record.

Identification Claim

The court agreed with the magistrate judge that the state court properly treated the witness identifications as confirmatory. The state appellate court’s conclusion that the identification was confirmatory presented a state-law question that was not reviewable in this federal proceeding. The court also stated that federal law did not require exclusion because identification evidence may be admitted when it is reliable under the circumstances. The witnesses’ familiarity with Parker supported the conclusion that their identification was independently reliable.

Prosecutorial-Misconduct Claim

The court also agreed that Parker’s prosecutorial-misconduct claim was procedurally barred. Parker had not preserved the claim under New York’s preservation rules. Those rules supplied an adequate and independent state-law ground for the state court’s decision, which generally prevents federal review of the related federal question. The court stated that this procedural bar alone was enough to dispose of that remaining ground for relief.

Disposition

Judge Daniels found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s report and denied Parker’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.