162373

Summary

The court held that due-process reliability screening applies when a witness identifies a defendant for the first time at trial, because the prosecution's elicitation of that identification can constitute an unnecessarily suggestive state procedure. The defendant nevertheless was not entitled to reversal because the unpreserved claim did not establish plain error affecting substantial rights, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to make an objection that would have been meritless under then-existing law. The court also held that within-guidelines sentences remain reviewable for reasonableness and proportionality, subject to a rebuttable presumption of proportionality, and remanded for that review.