Haji-Hassan v. State

1

ABDIRAHMAN HAJI-HASSAN, Petitioner v. STATE OF MAINE, Respondent

No. 2:23-cv-00355-LEW

United States District Court, D. Maine

April 17, 2024

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON 28 U.S.C. § 2254 PETITION

JOHN C. NIVISON, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeks relief from a state court conviction and sentence on a murder charge. (Petition ECF No. 1.) Petitioner claims (1) his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance during jury selection by failing to object to a peremptory challenge, (2) his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance at trial by failing to seek to introduce in evidence the prior bad acts of an alternate suspect, and (3) the state court violated his right to confront a witness against him by precluding cross-examination regarding the reasons the witness's prior employment was terminated. The State asks the Court to dismiss the petition. (Response, ECF No. 4.)

After a review of the section 2254 petition, the State's request for dismissal, and the record, I recommend the Court grant the State's request and dismiss the petition.

Factual Background and Procedural History^[1]

A. The Shooting, Arrest, and Charges

At just after 9:00 p.m. on November 21, 2014, authorities received a 9-1-1 call from an individual named Michael DeBlois, who requested assistance at his apartment because a man had been shot in the head and killed. A few days later, the State filed a criminal complaint charging Petitioner with murder. State v. Haji-Hassan, Me. Super. Ct., CUMCD-CR-2014-07716, Docket Record at 1-2, Petitioner's Appendix (“App.”) at 237-38, ECF No. 1-1; Complaint, App. at 4.) Law enforcement officers located and arrested Petitioner in Minnesota. (Docket Record at 1, App. at 237; Trial Tr. 592-98.) A grand jury indicted Petitioner in January 2015. (Docket Record at 1-2, App. at 237-38; Indictment, App. at 5; Order Amending Indictment, App. at 6.) A jury trial was held in December 2016. (Docket Record at 7-8, App. at 243-44.)

B. Trial and Sentencing

DeBlois testified that, in addition to himself and the victim, three other people were in his apartment leading up to the shooting: Petitioner, Gang Majok, and Mohammed Ashkir.^[2] (Trial Tr. at 174-75.) DeBlois knew Petitioner for at least two years, and the victim for approximately one year, while he had only met Majok and Ashkir on a couple of occasions. (Id. 195-202.) Petitioner arrived in the afternoon or early evening, well before the shooting, and DeBlois left the apartment twice to purchase items from nearby convenience stores, which items included Coca Cola, cigarettes, and other goods for them to share. (Id. at 195-97.) Later that evening, the victim, Majok, and Ashkir arrived together. (Id. at 202-03).

When the three recently arrived guests began handling, using, or packing drugs at the dining table, DeBlois went into his room at their direction. (Id. at 204-05.) According to DeBlois, when he came out of the bedroom, he saw Petitioner pointing a gun at Ashkir. (Id. at 179.) Deblois recognized the gun as a .357 magnum revolver because he was familiar with that type of firearm. (Id. at 218.). Petitioner lowered the gun to his side and the victim moved between Petitioner and Ashkir. (Id. at 182-85.) DeBlois testified that Petitioner fired a shot into the floor and shortly afterward fired a shot into the victim's leg. (Id. at 185.) DeBlois asserted that Ashkir fled out the door, Majok stood up and moved in a direction DeBlois did not observe, and DeBlois backed into the kitchen and grabbed a knife before hearing some threats, a third gunshot, a thud, and finally a rustling sound as one or perhaps two people went out the door of the apartment. (Id. at 186-91.) DeBlois found the victim near the door, checked for a pulse, and called 9-1-1. (Id. at 192-94.) DeBlois did not see anyone other than Petitioner with a gun that night. (Id. at 190-91.)

Law enforcement officers presented evidence they had collected which corroborated aspects of DeBlois' trial testimony. For example, officers found a receipt from a nearby convenience store for a purchase made on the day of the shooting, (id. at 700-02), an employee identified Petitioner as being present at the time of the purchase, (id. at 703), Deblois was seen on the video from another convenience store on the evening of the shooting, (id. at 339-48), Coca Cola containers and other items from the apartment contained fingerprints and DNA evidence that, according to the State's witnesses, matched to the victim, Petitioner, Majok, and Ashkir, (id. at 445-460, 777-91), and a holster found in the apartment contained only Petitioner's DNA, (id. at 789).

The Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Mark Flomenbaum, testified that he performed an autopsy and found a lead bullet in the victim's skull and an entrance and exit wound in the victim's left thigh. (Id. at 630-41.) Investigators found another bullet near the victim's body, and a firearms expert testified that the marks on the two bullets showed they were fired from the same weapon, which could have been a .357 revolver. (Id. at 820-21.)

Police did not find another bullet or bullet hole reflecting that a shot was fired into the floor of the apartment. (Id. at 421-23.) They did find a small piece of blue and white material containing only Petitioner's DNA. (Id. at 790-91.) When he was arrested and returned to Maine, Petitioner had a wound on his right leg; investigators obtained photographs and x-rays. (Id. at 460-62.) Dr. Flomenbaum testified that the photographs and x-rays showed two linear excoriations and two lead bullet fragments in Petitioner's leg that were consistent with a gunshot wound inflicted six to ten weeks prior, which time frame included the day the victim was killed. (Id. at 644-50, 677.)

At trial, the defense challenged the reliability of Deblois as a witness. For example, counsel demonstrated that DeBlois admitted that he used crack cocaine before and shortly after the shooting, (id. at 203-206, 968), had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, had experienced hallucinations and amnesia in the past, and was prescribed multiple medications for his condition but did not take the medications consistently and did not take them on the day of the shooting. (Id. at 171, 235-42, 955.) The defense also noted and argued that there were inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Deblois' testimony.

The defense also pointed to Majok as an alternate suspect. (Id. at 285-87, 969-70.) Defense counsel emphasized that the State had not produced a murder weapon, there was no evidence corroborating Deblois' report that there was a shot into the floor, and that Petitioner's blood was not found in or around the apartment or the possible getaway vehicle. (Id. at 363-64, 528, 965-67.) Counsel suggested that Dr. Flomenbaum's conclusions regarding the timing of Petitioner's leg injury could have been influenced by another investigator suggesting to him her suspicion that the injury occurred during a shooting approximately eight weeks before the images were taken. (Id. at 646-47, 673-79, 965.) A nurse who assessed Petitioner testified that he told her that he received the injury jumping a fence. (Id. at 869.)

The jury found Petitioner guilty. (Id. at 1003-1009; Docket Record at 8, App. at 244.) In March 2017, the Court sentenced Petitioner to thirty-nine years in prison. (Judgment, App. at 37; Docket Record at 9, App. at 245.)

C. Appeal and State Postconviction Petitions

In March 2017, Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal from his sentence, and in May 2017, the Sentence Review Panel granted leave to appeal. (Haji-Hassan v. State, Sentence Review Panel, SRP-17-138, Docket Record at 2.) Petitioner also filed a direct appeal of the judgment. As relevant here, on appeal, Petitioner argued the Superior Court erred when it precluded cross-examination of Dr. Flomenbaum regarding the termination of his employment as Chief Medical Examiner for Massachusetts. (Brief of Appellant, App. at 42-88.) In March 2018, the Maine Law Court affirmed. State v. Haji-Hassan, 2018 ME 42, 182 A.3d 145.

Petitioner filed a state postconviction motion in June 2018. (Haji-Hassan v. State, Me. Super. Ct., CUMCD-CR-2018-02928, Docket Record at 1, App. at 250; Postconviction Petition, App. at 126-35; First Amended Petition, App. at 136-40; Second Amended Petition, App. at 145-47; Third Amended Petition, App. at 156-57.) Petitioner argued that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the removal of a Black woman and a recent immigrant from the jury pool and by failing to introduce evidence of Majok's prior violent conduct. (Second Amended Petition at 2, App. at 146; Third Amended Petition at 1, App. at 156.) After a hearing in July 2021, the Superior Court denied Petitioner's request for postconviction relief. (Postconviction Decision, App. at 200-15; Docket Record at 4-5, App. at 253-54.)

Petitioner sought discretionary review of the denial from the Maine Law Court, but in May 2022, the Law Court denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of the state postconviction petition. (Haji-Hassan v. State, Me. L. Ct., CUM-21-396, Docket Record at 2-3, App. at 256-57; Order Denying Certificate of Probable Cause, App. at 236.) Petitioner subsequently filed the federal § 2254 petition.

Discussion

A. Legal Standards

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court may apply to a federal district court for writ of habeas corpus “only on the ground that he [or she] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

Absent circumstances not relevant to Petitioner's case, a petitioner is required to exhaust available state court remedies before he seeks federal...