Lee v. Foster

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition, alleging that witness’ in-court identification of defendant as culprit in charged reckless homicide offense denied defendant his due process rights, where witness admitted during cross-examination that he knew that he would be asked to identify culprit and that he would point to only African-American at defense table as culprit, and where witness was unable to identify defendant during pre-trial photo array. Witness’ testimony was not unconstitutionally unreliable, where witness also told authorities that he would be able to identify culprit in person, and where witness had ample opportunity to have viewed defendant immediately after shooting. Moreover, any flaws in witness’ testimony was matter for jury to resolve. Also, defendant could not assert any Confrontation Clause violation based on testimony from another witness, who recalled substance of conversation between defendant and third-party, where defendant conceded that said testimony was non-testimonial in nature.