Watson v. United States

37 F.4th 22

Trevor A. WATSON, Petitioner, Appellant,

v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent, Appellee.

No. 19-2134

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

June 15, 2022

Catherine Sevcenko for appellant.

Mark T. Quinlivan, with whom Nathaniel R. Mendell, Acting United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.

Before Thompson, Howard, and Gelpí, Circuit Judges.

GELPÍ, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner-Appellant Trevor A. Watson ("Watson") appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment below.

I. Background

A. The Jury Trial and Appeal¹

On April 21, 2010, Watson was indicted on two counts of attempting to kill a federal witness with intent to prevent testimony and communication with law enforcement. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(A),(C), (a)(2)(A),(C). The events that led to the charges occurred on February 27, 2010, when Watson stopped by Ann's Unisex Barbershop in Boston's South End to pay a visit to his friend and barber, Ricky Knight. Watson's longtime friend, Curtis Best ("Best"), was standing outside the barbershop chatting with Albert Rue ("Rue"), an acquaintance of both Watson and Best. Watson approached Best and asked him to talk privately. The two had not communicated for some time. They walked away and engaged in some small talk. Thereafter, "[a] short distance from the barbershop, Watson stopped, enveloped Best in a faux embrace, and stabbed him ten times ... while stating ‘So you talking? So you telling, huh?’ " United States v. Watson, 695 F.3d 159, 162 (1st Cir. 2012) Rue drove Best to Boston Medical Center, where he underwent surgery, and ultimately lived. At the time, Best was actively cooperating with federal authorities on a drug-related case that involved his and Watson's former drug supplier, John Camacho. Best provided the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") information that identified potential co-conspirators, including Watson.

Watson's trial began on October 25, 2010, and ended with a hung jury. Following a four-day retrial, he was convicted, and the district court sentenced him to an imprisonment term of 360 months. Watson appealed his conviction, challenging several evidentiary rulings and asserting that the prosecutor's closing argument was prejudicial to his case. Watson, 695 F.3d at 161-62. We affirmed.

On direct appeal, we first addressed the admissibility of evidence pertaining to a 2002 criminal case before the Massachusetts Superior Court in which Watson and two other individuals were charged with assault with intent to murder and assault and battery in relation to the stabbing of former Boston Celtics player Paul Pierce (the "Paul Pierce case"). Watson, 695 F.3d at 163-64. The district court took judicial notice of the testimony of Krystal Bostick ("Bostick") during that trial, as evidence of Watson's consciousness of guilt. Id. at 164-65. It informed the jury that after Bostick spoke with the Providence Police Department and offered her testimony to the grand jury, but prior to trial, she reached out to Watson's counsel and recanted. Id. Additionally, during the trial itself, "[she] repeatedly recanted her prior statements and identifications." Id. at 164. We ruled that the district court properly took judicial notice of these facts because the reference to the Paul Pierce case was invoked by Watson himself and, although likely adverse to him, it was not unfairly prejudicial. Id. at 165-66. We further held that the instructions imparted to the jury remedied any prejudicial effect. Id.

Next, we found no error by the district court in admitting the testimonies of Best, his co-conspirator Antonio Narvaez, and DEA Agent Dennis Barton, given that the same were relevant in demonstrating Watson's motive for stabbing Best and "[their] probative value was not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice." Id. at 166. Third, we addressed Watson's challenge to the admission of an unredacted footnote in the supporting affidavit of DEA Special Agent Brian Tomasetta (the "Tomasetta affidavit"). We concluded that, although the footnote therein should have been redacted, said error only revealed Watson's criminal history, which was otherwise evidenced at trial. Id. at 167-168.

B. The Habeas Proceedings

On January 14, 2014, Watson filed a motion before the district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Watson argued therein that his attorney committed three errors of constitutional magnitude, which were: (1) his decision not to object to the admission of the Paul Pierce case statements, (2) his failure to object to unredacted footnotes in the Tomasetta affidavit admitted as evidence, and (3) his failure to investigate, contact witnesses identified by Watson, and offer evidence that Best's status as an informant was not the reason why Watson stabbed him; instead Best owed Watson money that Best gave him to promote his music career.

Following a hearing, the district court found that Watson's claims pertaining to the Paul Pierce case and the Tomasetta affidavit had already been considered and rejected on direct appeal and, as such, it could not entertain the same. The district court further reiterated our ruling that its judicial notice was "narrowly confined to the material necessary." Watson, 695 F.3d at 165. Moreover, assuming arguendo that said two claims were not wholly foreclosed by our decision in the direct appeal, the district court concluded that Watson failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel.

Turning to Watson's claim not raised in his 2012 direct appeal, the district court held that it was skeptical to find constitutional error in counsel not contacting any of the witnesses whose names Watson provided. First, the district court noted that, at trial, Watson's attorney "did develop evidence, primarily through Rue's testimony, that people very close to Best had no idea he was an informant." The district court next held that Watson's attorney engaged in genuine efforts to introduce evidence of Best's alleged debt to Watson until the court sustained the prosecutor's objection regarding such line of questioning. Finally, the district court found that even if Watson's attorney committed constitutional error, the same was not prejudicial to Watson. This appeal followed.

We address each issue seriatim, as well as a new matter not raised below. While the law of the case applies to previously litigated issues already decided on appeal, this doctrine does not automatically bar ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Fernandez-Garay v. United States, 996 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2021). However, for any such properly raised issues we limit ourselves to reviewing the habeas record itself. Cf. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011) ("[R]eview under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the [ ] court that adjudicated the claim on the merits."); see also Atkins v. Clarke, 642 F.3d 47, 48-50 (1st Cir. 2011).

II. Standard of Review

In a habeas appeal, " ‘[w]e generally do not rule on questions -- whether of fact or of law -- until a district court has done so, ... allowing the parties to hone their arguments [to the district court] before presenting them to us.’ " Shea v. United States, 976 F.3d 63, 82 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting Moore v. United States, 871 F.3d 72, 79 (1st Cir. 2017) ). We review the district court's legal conclusions de novo and apply a clear error standard to its factual findings. Cody v. United States, 249 F.3d 47, 52 (1st Cir. 2001) ; see also Familia-Consoro v. United States, 160 F.3d 761, 764-65 (1st Cir. 1998).²

III. Discussion

The Constitution guarantees a defendant's right to fair trial, including the right to effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685-86, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). "[A]ttorneys must deliver, at minimum, ‘effective’ representation or ‘adequate legal assistance’ to their clients." Fernandez-Garay, 996 F.3d at 61-62 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment, Watson must establish that (1) "counsel's representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,’ " and (2) " ‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ " Id. at 62 (quoting Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 366, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) ); see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To prevail, Watson must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test. Courts do not need to assess the performance prong "[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice." Id. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

A. Judicially Noticed Facts of the Paul Pierce case

Watson contends that trial counsel's failure to object to the scope of the judicially noticed facts from the Paul Pierce case resulted in the jury finding out about testimony from Watson's involvement in said high-profile case before any other evidence was introduced in his federal trial. As such, his otherwise effective defense was impaired.

On direct appeal we addressed the evidentiary aspect of this matter. See Watson, 695 F.3d at 164. We explained that "Watson's abstract references to the ‘Paul Pierce case’ -- in which he was acquitted, in part due to multiple eyewitness abjurations -- are especially relevant in that they evince a clear consciousness of guilt, the full weight of which would be lost on the jury absent the introduction of some limited factual foundation" and as such, it was admissible prior bad acts evidence.

Id. at 165. This ruling constitutes the settled law of the case and hence shall not be revisited in habeas review. Fernandez-Garay, 996 F.3d at 62.

In now assessing whether trial counsel's representation fell...