Owens v. Duncan

781 F.3d 360 (2015)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Owens v. Duncan

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
781 F.3d 360 (2015)

Facts

Ramon Nelson was killed by a blow to the head. Two eyewitnesses, Maurice Johnnie and William Evans, identified Lawrence Owens (defendant) as the murderer from a photo array and lineup. Owens was charged with murder. At trial, Evans twice pointed at someone other than Owens from a photo array when asked to identify the suspect. Further, Evans and Johnnie offered conflicting testimony regarding the number of assailants and whether Nelson spoke to any assailant before the attack. Although the evidence suggested that Nelson sold illegal drugs, no evidence at trial was presented to show that Owens knew Nelson or knew that Nelson was a drug dealer. No physical evidence connecting Owens to Nelson’s murder was presented. The murder occurred during twilight when the area was already dark, which affected visibility. After a bench trial, the judge found Owens guilty, explaining that the witnesses had “skirted the real issue.” The judge identified the real issue as the fact that Owens knew Nelson and knew that Nelson was a drug dealer, and the judge concluded that the state had proven this. Owens appealed. The appellate court questioned the reliability of Evans’s testimony and found no evidence at trial that Owens knew that Nelson was involved with illegal drugs and that the judge’s belief to this effect was baseless. However, the appellate court held that the judge’s error was harmless because Johnnie’s identification of Owens was sufficient to establish Owens’s guilt. After exhausting state court appeals, Owens petitioned the federal court for habeas corpus, which was denied. Owens again appealed, arguing that he was convicted based on evidence that did not exist in violation of Owen’s right to the due process of law.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership