Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
2000)
Respondent appeals from April 19, 2000, order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Trager, Judge)
entered as final judgment on May 2, 2000, granting Charles Jones's
petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1).
Vacated and Remanded. P. 6557[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
THOMAS S. BERKMAN, Assistant District Attorney, Queens County,
(Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Queens County, Gary Fidel,
Assistant District Attorney, of counsel), Kew Gardens, New York, for
Respondent-Appellant.
GEORGIA J. HINDE, New York, New York, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Before: CALABRESI, CABRANES, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.
POOLER, Circuit Judge:
INTRODUCTION
1
Charles Jones was a crack addict who sometimes engaged in the dangerous
practice of selling "beat"1 to feed his addiction. On March 21, 1994, he was
arrested for selling three vials which, combined, contained one grain of cocaine
and was charged with the knowing and unlawful sale of a controlled substance
On appeal, we must decide whether the district court exceeded the narrow
confines of habeas review allowed by 28 U.S.C. 2254, as recently interpreted
by the Supreme Court in Terry Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct. 1495 (2000).3
We agree with the district court that Jones might have created a reasonable
doubt which did not otherwise exist if he were allowed to testify that he had
been arrested multiple times in the past for allegedly selling drugs but released
each time after lab tests revealed his innocence. Nonetheless, we hold that
under section 2254 and Williams, it was not objectively unreasonable for the
appellate division to conclude that the testimony would not create new grounds
for reasonable doubt. The appellate division could have decided that the
defendant's additional testimony would, at best, only have bolstered the
credibility of his statement that he did not intend to sell drugs in this case.4
Therefore, for reasons discussed more fully below, we find that the appellate
division did not interpret or apply Supreme Court precedent in an objectively
unreasonable fashion when it concluded that the trial court's evidentiary rulings
did not infringe Jones' constitutional right to present a defense. We reverse the
judgment of the district court.
BACKGROUND
4
We presume familiarity with the district court's thorough decision. See Jones,
94 F. Supp.2d 370.
A. The Arrest
5
Jones appeared before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens
County, (Spires, J.) on January 10, 1995. At that hearing, Jones' attorney
requested records of prior dismissed drug arrests:
[M]y client informs me that he was arrested by this same . . . drug team three
times over the last four years. And in each of these cases the . . . cases were
dismissed because of no controlled substance.
I would ask at this time that the District Attorney turn over any copies of any
files they have related to those arrests.
The district attorney stated that any such arrests were not on the rap sheet and
would not be subject to disclosure. Jones' attorney responded that the cases
might be in a closed file. The court suggested, "maybe you can provide . . .
more specificity," to inform the district attorney's search for the records. While
the court did not rule at that time whether the prosecution would be obligated to
turn over the material to the defense, the district attorney said that "[i]f we are
able to locate those files I would be happy to turn it over to the court for an incamera inspection." No records were ever produced. The records did not
surface until Judge Trager requested them in order to resolve the habeas
petition. See Jones, 94 F. Supp.2d at 375 (citing December 7, 1999, letter from
assistant district attorney Nicole Beder) (explaining that records revealed Jones
had been arrested at least twice and the charges in both cases were dismissed.
In at least one of the cases, charges were dismissed because the lab determined
that there was no controlled substance.)6
2. Trial
10
Defendant's trial began on January 12, 1995. At trial, the crucial issue was
whether Jones possessed the requisite criminal intent to sell cocaine, because
the defense did not dispute that Jones sold the vials and that the vials contained
cocaine. The defense elicited from two undercover officers on crossexamination that "[b]eat is when somebody tries to pass off a substance that is
not controlled substance to you, not a drug . . . as if it were drugs." Jones, 94 F.
Supp.2d at 375. The court sustained prosecution objections, however, when the
defense attorney asked how much cocaine one would expect to find in a fivedollar vial. The police chemist, Ali Hassan, testified that the total weight of the
substance recovered from the three vials Jones sold to the undercover officer
was one grain, or roughly the weight of one-fifth of an aspirin tablet. Hassan
further testified that the tests he administered did not reveal what percentage of
the substance found was cocaine and that the cocaine could have been mixed
with another substance.
11
Jones took the stand in his own defense on January 18, 1995. He testified that
on the day of the arrest, he smoked six vials of crack cocaine, dumping them
one at a time into a glass stem. He then refilled the empty vials with baking
soda, planning to sell them for more money to buy crack. Jones contended that
any trace amount of cocaine remaining in the vials was left by accident, as he
did not wash the vials before reusing them. Although the court sustained
several prosecution objections, Jones was allowed to testify he had sold beat in
the past.] Jones was not allowed to testify, however, about prior arrests and
their subsequent dismissals:
12
Q. Have you ever been arrested before with respect to items that were baking
soda, turned out to be baking soda?
13
14
15
16
The defense attorney did not inquire as to the nature of the prosecutor's
objection or the basis for the court's ruling, nor did he make an offer of proof
about what the evidence would show.
19
After almost seven hours of deliberation, and a request to have instructions and
testimony read again, the jury convicted Jones on January 19, 1995, and he was
sentenced to an indeterminate term of six to twelve years imprisonment.
3. Appellate Division affirmance
20
21
22
The dissenting members of the court argued that Jones' objections were
"adequately preserved for appellate review," id. at 370, and that Jones'
testimony about prior arrests should have been admitted at trial as habit
evidence or to show a "common scheme or plan to sell baking soda in lieu of
cocaine." Id. at 369. The dissent further concluded that "[b]ecause the
defendant was systematically thwarted in his efforts to establish that the vials
recovered from him had contained only a trace residue of controlled substance,
his ability to develop his defense was seriously curtailed." Id. Leave to appeal
to the Court of Appeals was denied by Judge Smith. See People v. Jones, 90
N.Y.2d 894 (1997).
C. Federal habeas review
23
On May 20, 1998, petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, which contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The district
court appointed counsel to represent Jones and then reinstated the pro se
petition by an October 27, 1998, order to show cause. In his reinstated habeas
corpus petition, Jones avoided dismissal by asserting only the exhausted
claims: (1) that the state trial court prevented him from exercising his
constitutional right to present a defense, (2) that the evidence was insufficient
to support a conviction, and (3) that the court violated his right to a public trial
when it closed the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover police
officers. In an admirably complete and thoughtful decision, the district court
granted the petition on the ground that the state trial court violated Jones'
constitutional right to present a defense by excluding his testimony that he had
been arrested in the past for selling beat. Jones, 94 F. Supp.2d at 396. The
district court rejected Jones' other arguments, and Jones does not advance them
on appeal.
DISCUSSION
24
25
When a state court judgment rests upon an adequate and independent state law
ground, federal courts lack jurisdiction on direct review to consider questions of
federal law decided by the state court. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.
722, 728 (1991). For reasons of comity and federalism, the same doctrine
"bar[s] federal habeas when a state court declined to address a prisoner's federal
claims because the prisoner had failed to meet a state procedural requirement."
Coleman, 501 U.S. at 729-730. When the state court discusses both state and
federal law, however, it can be "difficult to determine if the state law discussion
For administrative convenience, see id. at 737, the Supreme Court has
established a presumption to guide our analysis:
27
[Federal courts] will presume that there is no independent and adequate state
ground for a state court decision when the decision "fairly appears to rest
primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the
adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from
the face of the opinion."
28
Id. at 734-35 (quoting Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983)); see
also Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 266 (1989). In Harris, the Court held that "a
procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct
or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case
clearly and expressly states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar."
Harris, 489 U.S. at 263 (internal quotation marks omitted). We apply the
Long/Harris presumption to the last "reasoned state judgment" -- in this case,
the appellate division's opinion. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803
(1991).
29
Relying upon that presumption, we find that we are not barred from reaching
the merits of Jones' petition. While the appellate division set forth the factual
predicate for a finding of procedural default, it never actually stated that the
issue was not preserved. The court instead observed defense counsel failed to
object at trial that "the trial court's rulings improperly interfered with the ability
to present a defense." Jones, 658 N.Y.S.2d at 368. The court then cited without
explanatory parenthetical People v. Zambrano, 494 N.Y.S.2d at 905. In
Zambrano, defense counsel had "failed to discharge his burden of making a
specific offer of proof as to the admissibility of the testimony after the People's
objection thereto." Zambrano, 494 N.Y.S.2d at 905. Therefore the Zambrano
court concluded that "since the admissability [sic] of the aforesaid testimony
could have been resolved by proper offer of proof at trial, the issue cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal." Id.
30
The appellate division may have believed that Jones, like Zambrano, was
procedurally barred from presenting on appeal an issue that he did not raise
below. However, we follow the presumption established by the Supreme Court
and ask not what we think the state court actually might have intended but
whether the state court plainly stated its intention. Absent a plain statement, we
conclusively presume that the state court did not intend to rely upon state law:
31
The Long and Harris presumption works because in the majority of cases in
which a state court decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law or to
be interwoven with such law, and the state court does not plainly state that it is
relying on an independent and adequate state ground, the state court decision
did not in fact rest on an independent and adequate state ground. We accept
errors in those small number of cases where there was nonetheless an
independent and adequate state ground in exchange for a significant reduction
in the costs of inquiry.
32
Coleman, 501 U.S. at 737. For example, in Harris, the Court found that the state
court had not "clearly and expressly" relied on waiver despite the fact that "[i]n
its order, the Appellate Court referred to the 'well-settled' principle of Illinois
law that 'those [issues] which could have been presented [on direct appeal], but
were not, are considered waived.'" Harris, 489 U.S. at 258 (quoting state court).
Harris is precisely on point. Like the appellate division in this case, the Illinois
court set forth the factual predicate for a finding of waiver but did not clearly
state its intention to rely upon that state law ground.
33
Because the appellate division rested its decision primarily on federal law and
did not explicitly state its intention to rely upon an independent and adequate
state ground, we conclude that the district court correctly reached the merits of
the habeas petition.
B. Merits
1. Standard of Review
34
35
state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially
indistinguishable facts." Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000)
(O'Connor, J., writing for the Court in Part II of her opinion).8
36
37
38
The closer question is whether the appellate division decision was objectively
unreasonable in light of Supreme Court precedent that the opportunity to
present a defense is one of the constitutional requirements of a fair trial. See,
e.g., Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986) ("[T]he Constitution
guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete
defense.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Rock v. Arkansas,
483 U.S. 44, 51-53 (right to present defense includes right of defendant to
testify). The Supreme Court also instructs that "habeas corpus relief does not lie
for errors of state law," see Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991)
(citations omitted). We must, however, inquire into possible state evidentiary
law errors at the trial level in order to ascertain whether the appellate division
acted within the limits of what is objectively reasonable in finding no
constitutional defect existed in Jones' trial. Cf. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410
U.S. 284, 302 03 (1973) (erroneous exclusion of evidence amounts to
constitutional error if it deprives the defendant of a fundamentally fair trial); see
also Rosario v. Kuhlman, 839 F.2d 918, 924 (2d Cir. 1988) (same).
39
40
Under either state or federal evidence law, the trial court probably should have
admitted Jones' testimony that he had been arrested and released in the past for
selling beat, because prior acts are admissible to show proof of motive,
common scheme or plan, and intent. See People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264,
293 (1901) (also codified as Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)). The trial court, however,
might have concluded that the evidence would only cause the jury to make a
forbidden propensity inference. See United States v. Scarpa, 897 F.2d 63, 70
(2d Cir. 1990) ("A defendant may not seek to establish his innocence, however,
through proof of the absence of criminal acts on specific occasions."). Whether
the trial court acted within its discretion in so concluding is a close question.
Jones, after all, did not take the stand to establish an uncheckered past - by
doing so, he was forced to admit a previous felony conviction for burglary - but
to explain that the sale which led to his most recent arrest was part of a longstanding plan of selling beat in order to get money to buy crack cocaine.
41
Assuming that the testimony should have been admitted and that its exclusion
was clear error, viewing the record as a whole, we cannot conclude that it
would so certainly have created new ground for reasonable doubt that the
appellate division's decision was objectively unreasonable. The defendant
testified that he had in the past sold beat and further testimony about arrests,
arguably, would have been cumulative. The district court stated that "[b]ecause
of the trial court's erroneous ruling, the only evidence that the jury had . . . was
[Jones'] own testimony . . . . The jury was entitled to judge, and, no doubt, did
judge, this testimony to be too self-serving to be credible."Jones, 94 F. Supp.2d
at 393. But, even if Jones had been allowed to testify about the previous arrests,
the jury still would have had nothing but Jones' word for it. The prosecution's
records were not before the court and so would not have reached the jury in any
case. Moreover, even if it believed Jones' testimony about previous arrests, the
jury could still have concluded the different color tabs on the vials indicated
that he had sold both beat and regular cocaine.
CONCLUSION
42
Notes:
1
This court issued an order on June 6, 2000, staying until after appeal the district
court's additional order directing retrial within 60 days.
The reader is cautioned that the Supreme Court decided two cases entitled
Williams v. Taylor on April 18, 2000. Compare Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct.
1495 (2000) (Petitioner Terry Williams), with Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct.
1479 (2000) (Petitioner Michael Wayne Williams).
The official records were not available at the first trial, and, as there is no
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) issue in this case, are not before us
now. The only issue before us concerns Jones' own testimony. Thus, we have
One grain equals .0648 grams; i.e. one gram contains 15.43 grains. Penal Law
220.39 has no minimum-sale requirement, although higher penalties are
available for sales over one-half ounce, P.L. 220.41(1), and over two ounces,
P.L. 220.43. Under federal sentencing guidelines, Jones would have had to sell
25 grams of non-crack cocaine (385 grains) before leaving the lowest offense
level. See U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(c)(14).
In light of our disposition of this appeal, we need not decide whether the district
court's fact finding was appropriate under Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct. 1479
(2000) (requiring petitioner to have made a reasonable attempt to ascertain facts
at trial court level).
Jones did admit to a previous felony conviction for burglary, and the
prosecution mentioned that conviction in its closing argument as evidence of
Jones' lack of credibility.
The Court was unable to agree on a single majority opinion. Although Justice
Stevens authored Parts I, III, and IV of what constitutes the majority view,
Justice O'Connor's analysis in Part II of her opinion (which commands a
majority) is of particular relevance here.
We received and considered Rule 28(j) letters from counsel concerning Francis
S. and its impact on this case.