Williams v. Marshall, Civil Action No. 05-12426-WGY.

Page 192

473 F.Supp.2d 192

Eric WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. John MARSHALL, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 05-12426-WGY.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

January 11, 2007.

Anne E. Gowen, Princeton Junction, NJ, David J. Nathanson, Committee for Public

Counsel Services, Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Maura D. McLaughlin, Office of the Attorney General, Boston, MA, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YOUNG, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Eric Williams ("Williams") seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Williams was convicted of multiple offenses in the Massachusetts Superior Court, sitting in and for the County of Plymouth, Justice Patrick Brady presiding. At trial, a redacted version of a letter allegedly authored by Williams as a pre-trial detainee was admitted in evidence. Williams asserts that the admission of this evidence, as well as the manner of its use by the prosecution, violated his federal due process rights.

II. FACTUAL¹ AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 27, 1999, a Plymouth County grand jury indicted Williams on numerous counts, and his trial was scheduled to begin on December 14, 2000. Pet'r Mem. of Law and Appendix in Support of Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 12] ("Pet'r Mem.") at 3; Resp. Mem. of Law hi Opp. to Pet'r Pet for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. No. 20] ("Resp.Mern.") at 1-2.

The relevant factual background of Williams' collateral attack is summarized by the Massachusetts Appellate Court as follows, and this Court need not expand on it:

This case involves a series of incidents that took place in the Bartlett and Main Street areas of Brockton on the evening of August 9, 1999, that began with verbal exchanges between an occupant of [Williams'] motor vehicle and a woman standing among a group of women near the vehicle. On the evidence presented by the Commonwealth, the jury could have found that during this altercation, which extended over the course of the evening, [Williams] punched and struck Burnell with a gun and discharged a weapon into a populated area of Brockton. [Williams] countered with a twofold theory of defense, that is, he acted in defense of another and, in respect to the charges concerning the possession and use of a firearm, misidentification.

Commonwealth v. Williams, 63 Mass.App. Ct. 1112, 825 N.E.2d 1080, 2005 WL 955049, at *1 (Mass.App.Ct.2005).

Williams filed a motion in limine to exclude a letter he purportedly wrote while incarcerated and awaiting trial, as well as any corroborative testimony by the corrections officer who seized it at the facility where Williams was held. Id. at *1 n. 2; Resp. Mem. at 2. The Commonwealth filed its own motion in limine in favor of admitting the evidence. Resp. Mem. at 2. Justice Brady ruled both the letter and testimony admissible, with certain restrictions as to content and form. Id.; Trial Tr. 2:85-86.

Williams was tried by jury and convicted of assault and battery on Linda Burnell, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon on Linda Burnell, unlawful possession of a handgun, and unlawful discharge of a firearm within five hundred feet of a dwelling. Williams, 2005 WL 955049, at *1. Williams was acquitted of armed assault on an unknown male and of assault and battery on Tiffany Clark. Pet'r Mem. at 4; Resp. Mem. at 2. On the indictment charging assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, Williams was sentenced to nine to ten years in state prison. Pet'r Mem. at 5; Resp. Mem. at 2-3. The indictments charging assault and battery and unlawful discharge of a firearm were placed on file with Williams' consent. Pet'r. Mem. at 5. A bench trial was then conducted on the indictment charging unlawful possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a violent crime or drug offense in violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 269, section 10G(b). Pet'r Mem. at 4; Resp. Mem. at 3. Williams was convicted and received a term from ten years to ten years and a day. This sentence was to be served concurrently with the prior nine to ten year sentence. Pet'r Mem. at 4-5; Resp. Mem. at 2-3.

Williams timely filed a notice of appeal. Pet'r Mem. at 5; Resp. Mem. at 3. He then filed a motion for a new trial claiming, in part, that the admission of the letter and the corroborating testimony of the corrections officer who seized the letter violated his right to a fair trial. Williams, 2005 WL 955049, at *2. Justice Brady denied the motion without a hearing. Mem. and Order on Def.'s Mot. for a New Trial, Supp. Ans., Ex. 4 ("New Trial Mem.") at 1. Williams then filed a notice of appeal from the denial of the new trial motion. Brief and R.App. for the Def. on Appeal, Supp. Ans., Ex. 5, at 1-2.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed Williams' conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial in an unpublished opinion. Williams, 2005 WL 955049, at *1. Williams filed an application for further appellate review ("ALOFAR") with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which was denied. Pet'r Mem. at 6; Commonwealth v. Williams, 444 Mass. 1107, 831 N.E.2d 1293 (2005) (table decision).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard for Review

When a person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, a federal court may consider an application for habeas corpus only on grounds that the person is held "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A federal court may grant relief to a habeas petitioner only if the state court proceeding:

(1) resulted hi a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings.

Id. at § 2254(d); Rashad v. Walsh, 300 F.3d 27, 34 (1st Cir.2002). If, however, the habeas petition presents a federal claim that was raised before a state court but left unconsidered or unresolved, federal courts are to conduct de novo review. Lynch v. Ficco, 438 F.3d 35, 44 (1st Cir. 2006); Fortini v. Murphy, 257 F.3d 39, 47 (1st Cir.2001).

Williams argues that he is entitled to de novo review because the state courts did not address his federal constitutional claim. See Pet'r Mem. at 22-24. Specifically, Williams asserts that he raised the federal claim of a due process violation in his motion for a new trial before the trial court, in his appeal of conviction before the Massachusetts Appeals Court, and in his ALOFAR before the Supreme Judicial Court, but that none of the state courts considered his argument. See id.

In response, respondent argues that the test applied at trial and on appeal by the state courts to Williams' claim of prejudice was more favorable to him than the cognate standard for federal habeas review of a due process claim arising from the alleged erroneous admission of evidence. Resp. Mem at 8. As a result, respondent asserts that this Court ought apply the first prong of the more deferential standard found in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), upholding the state court's decision unless it constitutes an unreasonable application of federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. Id.

There is scant evidence of how seriously and deeply the Massachusetts Appeals Court considered Williams' claim of a federal due process violation resulting from the evidentiary ruling of the justice of the Superior Court. The Appeals Court explicitly referred to Williams' federal claim only once:

In his motion for new trial, the defendant alleged for the first time that his rights under the Federal and State Constitutions had been violated.

...

Based upon the testimony of the correction officer in charge of monitoring mail and the law, we see no abuse of discretion, or other error of law in the judge's determination that there was no basis for excluding the letter from evidence on the ground that it should not have been opened by correction officials.

Williams, 2005 WL 955049, at *2 (citations omitted). Under the section of the opinion entitled "b. Relevance of the letter," there is no reference to federal law at all. See id. Instead, the Appeals Court summarily dismissed Williams' claims:

Further, we see no merit to [Williams'] claims that the letter was inadmissible in that its contents portrayed him in a poor light, suggested an additional uncharged crime, and were unduly exacerbated by the prosecutor's use of a blow-up copy of the letter during closing argument.

Id. (internal citations omitted). The Appeals Court therefore concluded that the letter was "properly admitted in evidence." Id. at *3. The Supreme Judicial Court subsequently denied Williams' ALOFAR without explanation. Williams, 444 Mass. 1107, 831 N.E.2d 1293.

Williams states, however, that "[t]he state and federal standards differ only by degree: under state law, the court erred in admitting the letter if its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value; under federal law, due process was violated if the letter so infused the trial with inflammatory prejudice as to make a fair trial impossible." Pet'r Mem. at 26. Williams further states that "[t]horoughly addressing each inquiry separately would lead to substantial redundancy." Id. at 27. This Court will follow Williams' lead and assume for present purposes that the state evidentiary standard and federal due process standard are the same. On the basis of this assumption, the Massachusetts Appeals Court necessarily found that there was no federal due process violation when holding that the probative value of the letter outweighed its prejudicial impact under the state evidentiary standard. Cf. McCambridge v. Hall, 303 F.3d 24, 35 (1st Cir.2002) ("If there is a federal or state case that explicitly says that the state adheres to a standard that is more favorable to defendants than the federal...