Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on ground that lineup in which he was participant was unduly suggestive because participants were grossly dissimilar in appearance. Defendant procedurally defaulted said claim by failing to preserve instant stand alone due process claim in Dist. Ct., and further failed to raise said issue in his state court review proceedings. Fact that defendant used evidence of suggestive lineup to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by alleged Brady and Strickland violations did not serve to preserve instant issue for review, and record showed that defendant had otherwise abandoned any Brady or Strickland claim on appeal. Moreover, defendant failed to demonstrate any miscarriage of justice that would excuse his procedural default, where at least one other witness identified defendant as culprit.

In prosecution on drug and firearm offenses, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his home pursuant to search warrant, where application for said warrant contained one sentence of defendant’s recorded statement with third-party in his driveway, and where defendant contended that said statement was obtained secretly in violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Ct. failed to reach issue as to whether defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in his driveway conversation, which was recorded by device in car parked in said driveway, where other evidence apart from said conversation contained in search warrant application, including police surveillance during two controlled purchases involving defendant that resulted in receipt of drugs by confidential informant, supplied sufficient probable cause to support issuance of search warrant.