Gonsalves v. Rodrigues

1

ANTWAN GONSALVES, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL RODRIGUES, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 22-11994-RGS

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

June 24, 2024

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254

JENNIFER C. BOAL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On November 16, 2022, Antwan Gonsalves, who is currently serving a life sentence at a Massachusetts correctional facility filed pro se a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docket No. 1. For the following reasons, this Court recommends that Judge Stearns deny the petition.^[1]

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On February 22, 2017, a jury found Gonsalves guilty of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty in violation of M.G.L. c. 265, § 1. Docket No. 19-10 at 4. The trial judge sentenced Gonsalves to a mandatory term of imprisonment of life without parole.

Docket No. 19-11 at 6. Gonsalves filed a notice of appeal on March 27, 2017. Docket No. 19-1 at 13.

On July 17, 2019, Gonsalves filed a motion for a new trial in the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”). Docket No. 19-1 at 14. The SJC remanded that motion to the trial court and ordered that any appeal be consolidated with the appeal of Gonsalves' conviction. Id. On September 16, 2020, the Massachusetts Superior Court denied Gonsalves' motion. Id. at 15. Gonsalves thereafter filed a notice of appeal on September 21, 2020. Id. On January 13, 2022, the SJC denied relief under M.G.L. c. 278 § 33E^[2]and affirmed both Gonsalves' conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial. Docket No. 19-1 at 527-41; Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 488 Mass. 827 (2022).

On November 16, 2022, Gonsalves filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asserting the following grounds for relief:

1. Ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment because:

(a) counsel failed to impeach the two main witnesses with their criminal records;

(b) counsel failed to object to a witness' opinion evidence that Gonsalves was a murderer and failed to object to the prosecutor's argument that repeated the opinion and bolstered the testimony; (c) counsel failed to object to and move to strike the witness' testimony that she decided to incriminate Gonsalves after she spoke to God;

(d) counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's questions regarding a witness' fear of Gonsalves and then, after the jury sent a note during deliberations evidencing their fear, failed to request a curative instruction; and

(e) the motion judge abused his discretion by denying Gonsalves' motion for a new trial.^[3]

2. Insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gonsalves was guilty of extreme atrocity and cruelty in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Docket No. 1 at 5, 7, 16.

On January 19, 2023, the Commonwealth filed its answer.^[4] Docket No. 19. Gonsalves filed a memorandum in support of his petition on May 17, 2023. Docket No. 31. On June 22, 2023, the Commonwealth filed its opposition. Docket No. 34. Gonsalves filed a reply on August 24, 2023. Docket No. 38.

B. Facts

The SJC set forth the following facts “as the jury could have found them.”^[5]

1. Events surrounding the stabbing. The defendant was in the Central Square area of Cambridge on the night of September 11, 2015, into the early morning of September 12 with Georgette Bethune and Maurice Rascoe. Bethune had known the defendant for two and one-half to three years, but had been dating him and letting him stay with her and her son at her apartment for a couple of months. Rascoe had known the defendant for about ten years and considered him a friend. Both had met the defendant because he regularly sold them small amounts of marijuana. Neither had met the other before, and they did not speak again after September 12, 2015.

The two met up with the defendant at around 11 P.M. at a restaurant in Cambridge. Bethune testified that the defendant was wearing khaki pants and a black shirt. They then left to go to a bar in the defendant's car. The car was a dark blue, two-door Mercedes-Benz “hatchback.” It had a “for sale” sign in the rear passenger's side window. Registry of motor vehicles (RMV) records show that the defendant owned a blue, two-door Mercedes-Benz at the time.

The three then went to a bar on Massachusetts Avenue. They were only there about twenty minutes when Rascoe asked to be driven home to Malden. Around this time, Rascoe realized his cell phone's battery was dead, and borrowed the defendant's cell phone to call his girlfriend to let her know that he was coming home. Cell phone records show two short calls from the defendant's cell phone to Rascoe's girlfriend's cell phone at 1:35 A.M. and 1:36 A.M.; Rascoe testified that he made these calls either inside or in front of the bar as they were leaving. The three got into the car with the defendant in the driver's seat, Bethune in the front passenger's seat, and Rascoe in the back.

Around this time, the victim was also socializing with some friends in Central Square. At around 1:30 A.M., the group visited a convenience store on Massachusetts Avenue, near the bar. The victim left to find a bathroom while his friends were still in the store.

Devon Queen, who was smoking cigarettes outside the convenience store, approached the victim to ask him for marijuana. He did not know the victim, but thought the victim sold marijuana because he could smell it on the victim. The victim said to hold on and walked down the street to the defendant's car. Queen could hear yelling, but not specifically what was being said, although he did hear the victim say something about drugs.

The victim had approached the front passenger's side window, where Bethune was sitting, and began talking about drugs.^[6]The victim said that he “got it all” and asked if they wanted “crack” cocaine. According to Bethune, the defendant asked something like, “Why is this guy out here?” or “Why are you guys out here?” Rascoe testified that he responded by laughing, but took it as an insult because he did not think the group looked like the type of people who would buy crack cocaine. The defendant responded by saying, “Get the fuck away from my car.” He was not yelling, but his tone was serious. The victim backed up onto the sidewalk and did not initiate any further contact with the people in the car, but the defendant got out of the car and approached him, and Rascoe got out to follow the defendant. Rascoe testified that the defendant was arguing with the victim with “arms flailing” and that the defendant brushed off Rascoe's attempts to pull him away from the altercation.

Bethune saw the defendant “punching” the man with an underhand motion three times. The man had one hand in or on his pocket and was holding the defendant by the shirt with his other hand. She did not see anyone else involved in the fight, including Rascoe. Rascoe also testified that, besides his attempts to pull the defendant away, no one tried to interfere with the fight.

The victim came back towards the convenience store and fell down in front of Queen. At some point Rascoe picked up the victim's cell phone. He made conflicting statements on whether he picked it up from the ground, took it from the victim's pocket, or did not remember from where he got it. He also said he did not know that it was the victim's cell phone, but admitted that he knew it was not his or the defendant's.

The defendant and Rascoe reentered the car through the driver's side and made a U-turn to head towards Harvard Square. The defendant had a bloody knife in his hand, which he wiped off on his shirt and threw out the window at some point during the drive. Bethune testified that it was a black switchblade with a dragon on the handle, and that she had seen the knife before. The defendant repeatedly said that he “poked the n---- up” or that he “poked the kid.” Bethune was upset that the defendant had gotten in a fight with the man in front of a group of people, and was worried that the man's friends would retaliate. Upon learning that the defendant had stabbed someone, Rascoe threw the cell phone he had picked up out of the window.

The victim came back into the convenience store, bleeding but conscious, and collapsed again. The cashier called 911 while the victim's friends attempted to help him. Eventually some off-duty doctors who were in the area entered the store and began to treat the victim. An ambulance arrived and took the victim to Massachusetts General Hospital. He was pronounced dead at 4:21 A.M.

The cause of death was stab wounds to the chest and abdomen. The autopsy revealed five separate stab wounds. The first stab wound was one and one-half to two inches deep and passed between two ribs at a slightly upward angle into the right lung, causing bleeding into the chest cavity and air to escape the lungs. The second wound penetrated the sternum and pierced the heart. The third penetrated about two inches into the victim at a slightly upward angle, and passed between two ribs into the liver. The fourth penetrated four inches into the victim and hit both the liver and a major blood vessel. The fifth wound was three inches deep and passed through the abdominal wall at an upward angle into the liver. One of the stab wounds caused two separate injuries to the liver, indicating either that the victim moved while the knife was in his abdomen or that the knife was partially withdrawn and then stabbed inwards again. Each of the stab wounds could have been independently fatal.

2. Defendant's movements after the stabbing.

The group drove to Rascoe's house in Malden, where they continued to drink. Bethune

...