Breion S. Woodson v. Bradley Mlodzik, No. 22-3153, 2/28/25
Although Woodson has new evidence seeming to suggest he was sentenced on the basis of inaccurate information, the complex procedural rules of habeas litigation require affirmance.
Woodson was convicted of “firearm and drug possession charges” in Milwaukee County. (p.1). At his sentencing, the prosecutor played a damaging video clip allegedly demonstrating Woodson’s lawless character, as it shows “a group of men flashing guns and drugs on a street corner.” (Id.). The court believed that Woodson was one of the men in the video and used that video as a basis for an ensuing lengthy prison sentence. (Id.).
Woodson filed a postconviction motion asserting that he had been misidentified, which was denied. (p.2). The court of appeals affirmed in a per curiam decision. (Id.). After his petition for review was denied, Woodson sought habeas relief and presented new evidence appearing to support his claim of misidentification–booking photos which, in the 7th’s words, “suggest Woodson is not the man in the video.” (Id.).
Notably, both the district court judge and this panel agree that there are reasons to doubt the circuit court’s identification based on the new evidence. However, this is where Woodson’s claim runs into the buzzsaw of habeas law. In evaluating whether the state courts unreasonably interpreted the facts, the federal courts are limited to “the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” (p.5). While Woodson tries to make use of the “actual innocence” exception, that exception applies to defaulted claims, not to claims, like Woodson’s, which were adjudicated on the merits in state court. (Id.). And, even if the claim was procedurally defaulted, the Court would still be limited to the state court record. (p.8). Woodson also does not satisfy the limited requirements entitling him to an evidentiary hearing at which he may supplement the record in habeas proceedings. (p.10).
Accordingly, the Court holds that the Wisconsin courts did not act unreasonably. (Id.). Although Woodson makes all of the usual arguments about the fallacies of eyewitness identification, he failed to present evidence in state court to prove something more than a risk of misidentification. (p.11). It was his burden to prove the identification was, in fact, erroneous. (Id.). Based on this record, the state courts did not act unreasonably in holding that he failed to meet this burden.
This is a brutal outcome for Woodson. Although he appears to have persuaded these federal judges that he might have been misidentified–and the Court’s discussion of the sentencing remarks leaves no doubt about reliance–the idiosyncratic nature of habeas procedure leaves him without a remedy, thereby demonstrating the absolute necessity of perfecting the record in the direct appeal context.
If Woodson raised this claim on direct appeal and has not yet filed a 974.06 motion, he should still be able to raise this in state court alternatively arguing the new evidence as “sufficient reason” or ineffectiveness of post-conviction counsel for not finding and/or raising the evidence of actual misidentification.
Rob,
This is a great insight and why we are happy to have you as a reader!