Saunders v. LaManna

1

MICHAEL SAUNDERS, Petitioner, v. JAMIE LaMANNA, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility,^[1]Respondent.

No. 18 Civ. 12406 (NSR)(JCM)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

February 8, 2024

NELSON S. ROMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JUDITH c. MCCARTHY, United States Magistrate Judge

Michael Saunders (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on December 28, 2018 (“Petition”).^[2] (Docket No. 1). On March 22, 2019 Attorney General Barbara Underwood, on behalf of Jamie LaManna, Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Respondent” or “State”), opposed the Petition. (Docket Nos. 8, 9). Petitioner filed a reply on April 5, 2019. (Docket No. 11). For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully recommend denying the Petition.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Crimes, Investigation and Arrest

Petitioner's convictions arise out of an incident that occurred on March 21, 2012. (See generally Trial Tr.^[[3]]at 239).

A video surveillance system captured Petitioner speaking on his cellphone outside the apartment complex of Sabrina Durrah (“Victim”) around 8:00 p.m.^[4] (Id. at 723-25). It was warm, but Petitioner wore “[a] hooded sweat shirt . . . [and] big bulky winter gloves ....” (Id. at 251). While his “whole face” was visible, “an old fashioned white hockey mask” “peek[ed] out from under [his] hood ....” (Id.); (see also id. at 723-41). Petitioner hung up and entered the apartment building by “using the buzzer system, going into the lobby and taking the stairs.” (Id. at 252). This was the only intercom activity related to Victim's apartment that evening. (Id. at 928-32).

At this time, Victim's neighbors heard multiple gunshots. One neighbor had her window open and heard “something that sounded to [her] like [two] gun shots.” (Id. at 596). For “a good while after” the shots, she heard a baby crying. (Id. at 597). The neighbor remembered that it was March 21, 2012, because she recalled mentioning the noise to her husband, who did not hear it because he was watching the New York Rangers' game. (Id. at 602-03, 614-20, 935-38).

Twenty-five minutes after entering the building, a video surveillance system caught Petitioner coming out of the staircase, moving quickly through the lobby, and exiting through the front entrance. (See id. at 251, 723-41). He was wearing the same clothes, except the hockey mask was now over his face. (Id.). He drove away shortly thereafter. (Id.). Between March 21 and 24, 2012, Victim missed twenty-nine phone calls and did not send a text message or place a phone call. (Id. at 1175).

On March 24, 2012, Victim's aunt and cousin checked in on her. (Id. at 297-99). They found Victim deceased with her and Petitioner's four-month-old baby at her feet. (Id. at 301, 321). Victim appeared bloated, her fingers were purple, and she lay in dried blood. (Id. at 304, 367-68). The baby, Petitioner and Victims' child, was admitted to the hospital. (Id. at 348). The baby was “ashy” and “pale,” meaning she was likely suffering from dehydration. (Id. at 381-82, 465, 1331). The police arrived at Victim's apartment shortly after noon, secured Victim's apartment, and kept a log of every entrant. (Id. at 417, 424-25, 428-29). Paramedics observed that Victim had been dead for a while, and the baby was cold and covered in urine. (Id. at 37982). Victim displayed “lividity,” which meant that resuscitation efforts “would be futile.” (Id.). The police noted that there was no sign of forced entry, (id. at 918), but there were bullet holes in the mattress, (id. at 911), and a paternity petition compelling Petitioner to pay child support was in the living room, (id. at 908-09).

Afterwards, the police followed Petitioner's bus route and, using a ruse that they were investigating an incident on his bus, asked him to come with them to the police station, to which Petitioner agreed. (See, e.g., Pre-Trial Hr'g Tr.^[5]at 24-30); (see also Docket No. 9-1 at 20-21, 3550)^[6](“[Petitioner] asked what it was about to which [the detective] responded that he did not want to speak about it at that location.”). After receiving and acknowledging his Miranda rights, Petitioner spoke with the police for several minutes until he requested an attorney. (See id. at 108-09). Nevertheless, the interrogation continued. (See id.); (see also Docket No. 9-1 at 9) (“At 10:08 p.m., [Petitioner] requested to speak to an attorney [but] the detectives continued to question [him] into the early morning hours of March 27th and later in the afternoon of that day.”). Police arrested Petitioner at the end of the interrogation. (Id.).

The police executed warrants on Petitioner's home and car. (Trial Tr. at 750). While they did not find a firearm, their search revealed particles resembling gun primer residue (“GPR”) in various places. (See id. at 858, 1213-16). The car, which was parked at a Valhalla bus garage, was locked, wrapped in evidence tape, and towed to the police department. (Id. at 649-54). The car was accessible only with a key fob device. (See id.); (see also Trial Tr. at 677-78). The police recovered Petitioner's cellphone, revealing text messages with Victim about their child, and that Victim will “see [Petitioner] in court.” (Trial Tr. at 1155-57).

B. Petitioner's Trial

Before Petitioner's trial, defense counsel moved to exclude evidence of statements made during the police interrogation of Petitioner after he invoked his right to counsel. See People v. Saunders, No. 043312, 2013 WL 12109139, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 25, 2013). The prosecution “concede[d] that [Petitioner] made an unequivocal request for counsel,” id., and that, as a result, “all statements [made] after [Petitioner] requested counsel are inadmissible on their case in chief,” id. at *4. However, the prosecution reserved the right to “cross examine [Petitioner] on his statements subsequent to his request for counsel in the event [he took] the witness stand.” Id. at *1. Defense counsel argued that any use of the statements should be precluded because the “interrogation tactics amounted to psychological coercion ....” Id. at *4.

The trial court disagreed, ruling the statements may be used for cross-examination purposes because they were made voluntarily. Id. at *7.

Petitioner's trial began on February 28, 2013. (Trial Tr. at 230). The prosecution called several witnesses, including building superintendent Abraham Martinez, (id. at 551), Detective Jamie Douglass, (id. at 637), Detective Antonio Nolletti, (id. at 715), ballistics expert Detective Arthur Holtzman, (id. at 939), Detective Thomas Burke, (id. at 1067), forensic scientist Brandi Clark, (id. at 1095), forensic scientist Jeannie Valinsky, (id. at 1211), Chief Medical Examiner for Westchester County, Dr. Kunjlata Ashar, (id. at 493), forensic scientist Holly O'Connor, (id. at 794), and Dr. Lori Madmon, (id. at 961). Petitioner called four witnesses: former EMT Al McPartlan, (id. at 1252), Sergeant John Glynn, (id. at 1262), forensic pathologist, Dr. Charles Welti, (id. at 1282), and pediatrician Dr. Boris Mashalov, (id. at 1328).

The prosecution confirmed Petitioner's presence at Victim's building through surveillance footage and intercom activity. (Id. at 716-19, 723-741, 928-32). Two White Plains detectives testified on how they secured the surveillance footage. (See, e.g., id. at 637-47, 733) (revealing Petitioner entered the building at 8:04 p.m. and left at 8:28 p.m.). Neighbors testified that, on the same day the footage showed Petitioner at the apartment building, they also heard gunshots, (see, e.g., id. at 596), and the prosecution established that Petitioner's car was riddled with GPR, (id. at 1230). Ms. Valinksy, a forensic scientist, testified that the GPR particles found in Petitioner's home and on his car could not have come from anything other than a firearm. (Id. at 1228). Dr. Ashar testified that Victim's body “had no rigidity,” (id. at 499), indicating that Victim died about three days before the family found her, (id. at 511). Detective Martin testified that he found a paternity petition in Victim's apartment initiated by Victim against Petitioner. (Id. at 906-11).

After the prosecution rested, defense counsel moved for an order dismissing the indictment based on the State's failure to set forth a prima facie case, which the court denied. (Id. at 1242-44). Petitioner began his defense by calling Dr. Welti, a forensic pathologist who testified that, based solely on his review of the record, precision in establishing the time of death “is clearly not achievable,” but estimated the time of death to be March 23, 2012, one day before Victim's family found her. (Id. at 1289, 1307). Another defense expert, Dr. Mashalov, similarly testified that it is difficult to determine how long the baby lacked food and water, yet offered a time of death of March 23, 2012. (Id. at 1342).

Defense counsel also called Sergeant Glynn, who was present at the crime scene, in an attempt to introduce a recorded phone call he made from the scene to his tour commander, in which he purported to describe the state of the body. (Id. at 1262-67). The prosecution's objection was sustained, and the recording was not introduced into evidence. (Id. at 1267). Over the course of the trial, defense counsel objected to the admission of other evidence. (See, e.g., id. at 728-30) (objecting to the introduction of images from the surveillance footage).

Ultimately the jury convicted Petitioner of Second Degree Murder, Second Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon, Second Degree Assault and First Degree Reckless Endangerment. (Id. at 1497). He was sentenced to imprisonment for: (1) an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for murder; (2)...