Ronald Turney Williams v. Terry L. Stewart
441 F.3d 1030 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pretrial identification procedure does not violate due process, even if highly suggestive, when the defendant's own voluntary actions, such as subpoenaing a witness and conducting a deposition while representing himself, are the primary cause of the suggestive circumstances.
Facts:
- On March 12, 1981, a man spoke to Sylvia Bunchek at her home before breaking into her neighbor's residence.
- When Sylvia's husband, John Bunchek, went to the neighbor's house to investigate, he was shot and killed.
- After a composite sketch of the suspect was televised, Ronald Turney Williams's roommates identified him from the sketch and reported their suspicions to the police.
- Williams left Scottsdale on the day of the murder without informing his roommates.
- Williams was later arrested in New York City after a shoot-out with FBI agents, and the gun he used was ballistically matched to the weapon that killed Bunchek.
- A footprint found on the door of the burglarized home matched the tread of a type of athletic shoe that Williams had owned.
- While representing himself pro se, Williams subpoenaed eyewitness Elizabeth Tautkus for a deposition, intending to obtain a statement that he was not the person she saw.
- During the deposition, which Williams conducted himself while in prison attire and manacles, Tautkus identified him as the man she saw near the crime scene.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in an Arizona state trial court convicted Ronald Turney Williams of first-degree murder and armed burglary.
- Following a separate sentencing hearing, the trial judge imposed a death sentence.
- The Arizona Supreme Court, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Williams's petition for post-conviction relief in state court was denied.
- Williams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
- The district court denied the habeas petition in its entirety.
- Williams (appellant) appealed the district court's denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pretrial eyewitness identification procedure violate the Due Process Clause when the defendant, representing himself, compels a witness to attend a deposition where his status as the sole suspect is obvious, thereby creating the suggestive circumstances himself?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A pretrial eyewitness identification does not violate the Due Process Clause when the defendant creates the suggestive circumstances. Although the court recognized the deposition was held under 'extremely suggestive circumstances,' it held that the procedure did not offend due process because it was Williams who procured the identification. By subpoenaing the witness and choosing to conduct the deposition himself, Williams voluntarily created the suggestive confrontation where he was the obvious suspect. This self-created suggestiveness is not the sort of 'impermissibly or unduly suggestive' state action that violates due process. Furthermore, the court held that even if admitting the identification was an error, it was harmless because cross-examination exposed its weaknesses and there was strong circumstantial evidence of Williams's guilt, including the murder weapon and a matching shoe print.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the due process protection against suggestive eyewitness identifications is aimed at preventing improper state action, not at remedying poor litigation choices made by a defendant. By focusing on the origin of the suggestiveness, the court prevents a defendant, even one proceeding pro se, from manufacturing a constitutional claim by creating a suggestive confrontation and then challenging its outcome. This precedent reinforces that the core of a due process violation in this context is impermissible state conduct that creates a substantial likelihood of misidentification, not merely the existence of suggestive circumstances in a vacuum.
