Dennis Adams v. Richard Gramley

On the basis of an eyewitness identification, Dennis Adams was convicted of armed robbery and attempted murder. He challenged the identification at trial, observing that he is six feet tall, while the witness (the victim of the crime) initially told the police that his assailant was about 5 and a half feet tall. The victim testified at trial that the discrepancy occurred because he studied and remembered the robber's face rather than his stature. His identification at trial was positive, and there were many corroborating details. The victim described Adams's car accurately and gave its license plate with a transposition of digits (the witness told the police that the robber had plate DX 3619; Adams drove a car with plate DX 3916).

The jury believed the witness, and the state's court of appeals held the evidence sufficient. People v. Adams, No. 3-87-0660 (Ill.App.3d Dist. Apr. 28, 1988). Now Adams seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254, but our only question is whether any reasonable juror could have believed the victim-witness. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). The answer is yes. Many a conviction is based on the testimony of a single witness. E.g., United States ex rel. Wandick v. Chrans, 869 F.2d 1084, 1089 (7th Cir.1989). Were it otherwise, crime would be all too easy. The most that can be said is that the victim gave inconsistent descriptions of his assailant. Someone had to decide which description to accept. In our system of criminal justice, that someone is the jury.

AFFIRMED.