David Smith v. Cynthia Davis

── David Smith v. Cynthia Davis ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0251n.06 No. 25-3383 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jun 04, 2026 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) DAVID M. SMITH, ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT v. ) COURT FOR THE NORTHERN ) DISTRICT OF OHIO CYNTHIA DAVIS, Warden, ) Respondent-Appellant. ) OPINION ) ) ) Before: COLE, CLAY, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which COLE, J., concurred. THAPAR, J. (pp. 16–17), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. CLAY, Circuit Judge. Warden Cynthia Davis appeals the district court’s grant of an unconditional writ of habeas corpus to Petitioner David Smith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. I. BACKGROUND A more detailed account of the factual background and procedural history in this case can be found in our opinions, Smith v. Davis, No. 23-3604, 2024 WL 3596872 (6th Cir. July 31, 2024) and Smith v. Davis, Nos. 25-3381/3383, 2025 WL 1826652 (6th Cir. July 2, 2025). For the purposes of the issues before us now, we summarize the relevant facts and procedural history. On October 16, 2015, Quortney Tolliver (“Tolliver”) was attacked with a hammer in her mobile home and then hospitalized because of severe head injuries. Smith, 2024 WL 3596872, at -1- No. 25-3383, Smith v. Davis *1. As the police investigated the crime over the course of months, Tolliver maintained that she could not remember any details surrounding the incident. Id. at *1-2. The police improperly sought to obtain an identification from Tolliver. Id. at *2. In doing so, the police showed Tolliver a photo of Petitioner David Smith (“Smith”) and told her that Smith attacked her, he was previously convicted for attempted murder, and he wanted her dead. Id. Despite the police’s attempts to obtain an identification, Tolliver still could not recall the incident. Id. at *3. However, Tolliver eventually told police that, because of a dream that she had about the attack, Smith was the perpetrator. Id. The prosecution then presented Tolliver’s identification of Smith at the trial in state court, and the jury convicted Smith of attempted murder, felonious assault, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. Id. at *1. After unsuccessfully appealing the trial court’s suppression ruling and exhausting his state options, Smith filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in February 2020, and the district court denied the petition. Id. at *4. Smith appealed, and we held that “Smith was convicted based on an unduly suggestive and coercive single photo identification procedure.” Id. at *12. As such, we reversed the district court’s denial of the writ of habeas corpus and ordered that “the district court issue Smith a writ of habeas corpus unless the State proceeds, within 180 days, to prosecute Smith in a new trial without utilizing Tolliver’s identificatio