Lee v. Corsini, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Lee v. Corsini, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/30

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1070

ROBERT M. LEE,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

MI CHAEL CORSI NI ,

Respondent , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Mar k L. Wol f , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, Sel ya and St ahl ,Ci r cui t J udges.

Mar y T. Roger s, f or appel l ant .Anne M. Thomas, Ass i st ant At t orney General , wi t h whom Mart ha

Coakl ey, At t or ney Gener al , was on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J anuar y 26, 2015


2/30

STAHL, Circuit Judge. A j ur y convi ct ed Pet i t i oner -

Appel l ant Rober t M. Lee of mur der i n t he f i r st degr ee f or t he 1976

death of Angel Sant os Davi l a. The Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al

Cour t ( "SJ C") af f i r med Lee' s convi ct i on on di r ect appeal . See

Commonweal t h v. Lee, 383 Mass. 507 ( 1981) . Af t er sever al

unsuccessf ul mot i ons f or a new t r i al i n st at e cour t , Lee f i l ed a

pet i t i on f or habeas cor pus rel i ef i n f eder al di st r i ct cour t ,

ar gui ng t hat hi s at t or neys at bot h t r i al and post convi ct i on

pr oceedi ngs wer e const i t ut i onal l y i nef f ect i ve and t hat

pr osecut or i al mi sconduct t ai nt ed hi s case. The di st r i ct cour t

deni ed habeas r el i ef as wel l as Lee' s mot i on f or di scover y, hol di ng

t hat al l of Lee' s cl ai ms had been pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed. Af t er

car ef ul consi der at i on, we hol d t hat t he cl ai m of i nef f ecti ve

assi st ance of post convi ct i on counsel has not been pr ocedur al l y

def aul t ed, but t hat 28 U. S. C. 2254( i ) const i t ut es an i ndependent

bar t o habeas rel i ef on t hi s gr ound. We accor di ngl y af f i r m.

I . Fact s & Backgr ound

A. Under l yi ng cr i me

We set f or t h t he f act s as r ecount ed by t he SJ C i n

af f i r mi ng Lee' s convi ct i on on di r ect appeal , suppl ement ed by ot her

consi st ent f act s i n t he r ecor d. Yeboah- Sef ah v. Fi cco, 556 F. 3d

53, 62 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

-2-


3/30

J anet Br ady hi r ed Lee t o ki l l her boyf r i end Angel Sant os

Davi l a, wi t h whom she l i ved. 1 Br ady t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat her

r el at i onshi p wi t h Davi l a began det er i or at i ng i n t he spr i ng of 1976,

and t hat , by t he summer , she had r esol ved t o "f i nd someone t o pay

t o do hi m harm. " She cont act ed Robert DeCot , t he manager of a

l ocal bar , who put her i n t ouch wi t h Lee. Lee was known t o DeCot

as a pat r on of hi s bar ; Br ady, t oo, was al r eady acquai nt ed wi t h

Lee, as he was a cust omer at t he For t Devens cr edi t uni on where she

wor ked as a l oan of f i cer . Over t he days l eadi ng up t o Davi l a' s

shoot i ng, Br ady and Lee met sever al t i mes at l ocal bar s and i n the

back of f i ce of t he cr edi t uni on. Dur i ng t hese meet i ngs, t hey made

pl ans t o " t ake care of " Davi l a and di scussed payment . Lee demanded

$500 upf r ont , pl us an addi t i onal $2000; Br ady compl i ed.

Davi l a was shot at appr oxi mat el y 8: 45 p. m. on Thur sday,

August 26, 1976. Peopl e at t endi ng a pool par t y at t he house next

door t o Br ady and Davi l a' s hear d shot s r i ng out , as wel l as t he

sound of a car wi t h a noi sy muf f l er dr i vi ng away. An "ol d car ,

maki ng a l ot of noi se" and " r eddi sh" i n col or was seen dr i vi ng away

ver y f ast . Lee' s wi f e, who was out of t own at t he t i me of t he

shoot i ng, owned a r ed Toyot a, whi ch Lee had been seen dr i vi ng that

week.

1 Br ady was char ged wi t h conspi r acy and accessory bef ore thef act t o mur der . Bef or e Lee' s t r i al , she pl eaded gui l t y t oconspi r acy, and t he accessory charge was di smi ssed. She ser vedseven years i n pr i son, and di ed i n 2001.

-3-


4/30

Pol i ce r ecover ed one yel l ow Sear s shot gun shel l ,

det er mi ned t o have come f r om a 20- gauge shotgun, out si de Davi l a' s

house, as wel l as No. 8 shot l ead f r agment s f r om t he st ai r way

i nsi de t he house; si mi l ar l ead f r agment s al so wer e ext r act ed f r om

Davi l a' s body dur i ng t he aut opsy. Ther e was t est i mony at t r i al

t hat al t hough Lee had l oaned hi s shot gun t o a f r i end, he pi cked i t

up somet i me bet ween August 23 and 26. When pol i ce ar r est ed Lee on

August 29, t hey f ound i n hi s cl oset a 20- gauge Remi ngt on shot gun

and f i ve yel l ow Sear s 20- gauge shot gun shel l s f i l l ed wi t h No. 8

shot .

Lee pr esent ed an al i bi def ense:

Lee of f er ed hi s own and cor r obor at i ngt est i mony t hat he was at a bar some di st anceaway f r omt he vi ct i m' s home f r omei ght o' cl ockunt i l wel l af t er ni ne on t he eveni ng i nquest i on. He sought t o show t hat he was notdr i vi ng hi s wi f e' s r ed Toyot a but a j eep t hatni ght , t hat t he Toyot a was not ol d or noi sy,and t hat he di d not r ecover hi s shot gun unt i lFr i day, August 27, t he day af t er t he shoot i ng.Lee' s ver si on of hi s cont act wi t h J anet Br adywas t hat she asked hi mt o col l ect money f r omaMr . "Warner . " He cl ai med Br ady concoct ed t hest or y of t he conspi r acy wi t h Lee i n or der t opr ot ect her son or someone el se who act ual l yshot Davi l l a [ si c] .

Lee, 383 Mass. at 509. Af t er a si x- day t r i al i n May 1977, t he j ur y

r ej ect ed t hi s def ense and f ound Lee gui l t y of mur der i n t he f i r st

degree.

-4-


5/30

B. Di r ect appeal

On appeal , Lee chal l enged t he deni al of hi s mot i on t o

suppr ess and mot i on f or a di r ect ed ver di ct , as wel l as t he j ur y

i nst r ucti ons on mal i ce and t he t r i al j udge' s f ai l ur e t o i nst r uct on

mansl aught er . The SJ C af f i r med Lee' s convi ct i on i n 1981, f i ndi ng

no mer i t t o any of hi s ar gument s.

C. Post convi ct i on pr oceedi ngs

Post convi ct i on pr oceedi ngs have ext ended over f our

decades si nce Lee' s convi ct i on was af f i r med on di r ect appeal . Lee

f i l ed hi s f i r st mot i on f or a new t r i al , t hr ough counsel , i n J ul y

1983. Af t er t hat at t or ney was di sbar r ed, anot her l awyer t ook over

hi s case and f i l ed a subst i t ut e mot i on f or a new t r i al i n August

1989. That mot i on r ai sed cl ai ms of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

counsel , based on a f ai l ur e t o i nvest i gat e Lee' s pur por t ed l ack of

cr i mi nal r esponsi bi l i t y as a r esul t of ment al i mpai r ment sust ai ned

i n t he Vi et nam War ; i nef f ect i veness of counsel i n cr oss- exami ni ng

wi t nesses and f ai l i ng t o r equest a j ur y i nst r uct i on on

mi si dent i f i cat i on; and er r or i n t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons on r easonabl e

doubt and mal i ce. The mot i on was deni ed wi t hout a hear i ng i n

Febr uar y 1990.

Lee subsequent l y f i l ed a pr o se mot i on t o reconsi der t hat

deci si on, whi ch al so added sever al cl ai ms cent er i ng on hi s l ack of

cr i mi nal r esponsi bi l i t y and i ncompet ence t o st and t r i al , and

i nef f ecti ve assi st ance of counsel f or f ai l ur e t o r ai se t hose

-5-


6/30

cl ai ms. Thi s mot i on, t oo, was deni ed wi t hout a hear i ng. Lee

sought l eave t o appeal , and a hear i ng was hel d bef ore a si ngl e

j ust i ce of t he SJ C i n November 1992. The si ngl e j ust i ce, act i ng as

gat ekeeper , decl i ned t o l et t he appeal pr oceed t o t he f ul l cour t . 2

Lee f i l ed anot her pr o se mot i on f or a new t r i al i n

Sept ember 1995, al so r equest i ng that counsel be assi gned to hi m.

Al t hough hi s mot i on f or t he appoi nt ment of counsel was al l owed,

none was assi gned and, f or r easons t hat ar e uncl ear f r om t he

r ecor d, no f ur t her act i on was t aken on Lee' s case f or over seven

years. Mary Roger s, Lee' s cur r ent at t orney, was appoi nt ed as new

counsel i n February 2003; i n Sept ember 2004, she f i l ed a new mot i on

f or a new t r i al t o subst i t ut e f or Lee' s pr o se f i l i ng.

The 2004 mot i on f or a new t r i al t ook a new t ack. I nst ead

of f ocusi ng on Lee' s al l eged l ack of cri mi nal r esponsi bi l i t y and

cl ai med er r or i n j ur y i nst r uct i ons, t hi s mot i on asser t ed numer ous

i nst ances of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel at bot h t r i al and

post convi ct i on st ages as wel l as pr osecut or i al mi sconduct as

2 As wi l l be di scussed bel ow, i n f i r st - degr ee mur der cases,Massachuset t s al l ows f or t he f i l i ng of successi ve mot i ons f or a new

t r i al f ol l owi ng t he af f i r mance of t he def endant ' s convi ct i on ondi r ect appeal . Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. However , an appealf r om a deni al of a mot i on f or a new t r i al may onl y pr oceed t o t hef ul l Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t i f a si ngl e j ust i ce of t he SJ C, acti ngas gat ekeeper , determi nes t hat t he appeal "pr esent s a new andsubst ant i al quest i on. " I d. ; Napol i t ano v. At t ' y Gen. , 432 Mass.240, 241 & n. 2 (2000) .

-6-


7/30

gr ounds f or a new t r i al . 3 I n connect i on wi t h t hi s mot i on, Lee al so

3 As t he di st r i ct cour t summar i zed, t he 2004 mot i on f or a new

t r i al put f or war d many gr ounds of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of t r i alcounsel , i ncl udi ng t hat :

( 1) he f ai l ed t o cal l t wo mai n suspect s Br ady' s el destson and t hat son' s f r i end as wi t nesses and i nst eadal l owed admi ssi on of t hei r wr i t t en st at ement s t o pol i cet o subst i t ut e f or l i ve t est i mony;( 2) he f ai l ed to ar gue t hat Br ady' s ex- husband may havebeen t he mur der er , despi t e st atement s t o the pol i ce byt he vi ct i mand Br ady that suggest ed t he ex- husband mi ghthave shot t he vi ct i m;( 3) he f ai l ed t o cross- exami ne Br ady about her change of

pl ea on t he eve of t r i al and her pr i or i nconsi st entst atement s t o t he pol i ce;( 4) he had an undi scl osed conf l i ct of i nt er est , havi ngr epr esent ed Br ady i n a di vor ce pr oceedi ng sever al yearspr i or t o t he t r i al ;( 5) he i nadequat el y pr epar ed, i nvest i gat ed, and pr esent edevi dence, i ncl udi ng a compl et e f ai l ur e t o have anywi t nesses r eady at t he begi nni ng of t r i al and hi smi sst at i ng of f act s dur i ng hi s cl osi ng ar gument ;( 6) he was an al cohol i c who dr ank dur i ng t r i al and wasul t i matel y censured by the bar and i s no l ongerpr act i ci ng l aw;

( 7) he f ai l ed t o hi r e a f i r ear ms exper t at t he out set oft r i al , and t he one he hi r ed mi d- t r i al was i ncompet ent ;( 8) he r equi r ed assi st ance f r om t he t r i al j udge i nf r ami ng f oundat i on quest i ons r egar di ng Lee' s char act erf or t r ut hf ul ness; and( 9) he al l owed Lee t o be seat ed i n t he dock dur i ng t r i al .

I n addi t i on, Lee advanced cl ai ms of pr osecut or i almi sconduct , al l egi ng t hat : ( 1) t he pol i ce f ai l ed t oi nvest i gat e Lee' s al i bi , Br ady' s al i bi , or t hose ofBr ady' s el dest son and hi s f r i ends; ( 2) t he pol i cet hr eat ened a wi t ness; ( 3) t he pr osecut or f ai l ed t odi scl ose excul pat ory evi dence; and ( 4) t he Commonweal t h' s

f i r earms exper t f ai l ed t o pr eserve, document , and measur eevi dence. Fi nal l y, Lee cl ai med t hat hi s post - convi ct i onat t or neys wer e i nef f ect i ve f or f ai l i ng t o r ai se t hesecl ai ms.

Lee v. Corsi ni , No. 07- 11316- MLW, 2013 WL 6865585, at *4- 5 ( D.Mass. Dec. 24, 2013) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

-7-


8/30

f i l ed mot i ons f or di scover y, i n at t empt t o obt ai n document s such as

pol i ce r epor t s, bal l i st i cs recor ds, gr and j ur y mi nut es, and t he

vi ct i m' s st at ement s t o pol i ce, whi ch st at e pr osecut or s and l aw

enf or cement of f i cer s pur por t edl y had not provi ded. The cour t

deni ed t he mot i on f or new t r i al i n Sept ember 2005 wi t hout

expl i ci t l y addr essi ng t he mot i ons f or di scover y. Lee sought l eave

t o appeal t he deni al of t he mot i on bef or e a si ngl e j ust i ce of t he

SJ C. Fi ndi ng t hat t he appeal di d not r ai se "a new and subst ant i al

quest i on, " Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, t he si ngl e j ust i ce, i n

J ul y 2006, decl i ned t o l et t he appeal proceed t o t he f ul l cour t .

Lee, t hr ough cur r ent counsel , f i l ed a pet i t i on f or a wr i t

of habeas cor pus i n t he di st r i ct cour t i n J ul y 2007, r ai si ng much

t he same cl ai ms as t he 2004 mot i on pr esent ed. Lee al so f i l ed

sever al anci l l ar y mot i ons, i ncl udi ng a mot i on f or di scover y, mot i on

f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, and mot i on f or cr i mi nal r ecor ds of

wi t nesses. The di st r i ct cour t hel d a non- evi dent i ar y hear i ng i n

March 2009, and subsequent l y deni ed Lee' s mot i ons. For r easons

t hat ar e uncl ear f r om t he r ecor d, t he di str i ct cour t ' s f i nal

memorandum and order denyi ng habeas r el i ef di d not i ssue unt i l

December 2013, near l y si x- and- a- hal f year s af t er Lee f i l ed t he

pet i t i on.

Appl yi ng our deci si on i n Cost a v. Hal l , 673 F. 3d 16,

2225 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat al l of Lee' s

cl ai ms had been pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed, si nce, as t he si ngl e

-8-


9/30

j ust i ce of t he SJ C had deter mi ned, t hey f ai l ed t o overcome t he "new

and subst ant i al quest i on" hur dl e of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E.

See Lee v. Cor si ni , No. 07- 11316- MLW, 2013 WL 6865585, at *11 ( D.

Mass. Dec. 24, 2013) . As "deni al of r evi ew under 33E [ due t o

pr ocedur al wai ver ] i s an i ndependent and adequate st ate gr ound t hat

bars f ederal habeas r evi ew, " Si mpson v. Mat esanz, 175 F. 3d 200, 206

( 1st Ci r . 1999) , t he di st r i ct cour t decl i ned t o r each t he mer i t s of

Lee' s cl ai ms, f i ndi ng nei t her cause f or nor pr ej udi ce f r om t he

pr ocedur al def aul t , nor any f undament al mi scar r i age of j ust i ce t o

excuse t he def aul t .

Thus, af t er a l ong and t or t uous process i nvol vi ng

somet i mes i nor di nat e del ay, t hi s appeal has f i nal l y r eached us,

over t hi r t y- ei ght year s af t er t he shoot i ng of August 26, 1976.

II. Analysis

We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a habeas cor pus

pet i t i on de novo. Lynch v. Fi cco, 438 F. 3d 35, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

Because, as a gener al mat t er , " [ a] f eder al habeas cour t

wi l l not r evi ew a cl ai m r ej ect ed by a st at e cour t i f t he deci si on

of [ t he st at e] cour t r est s on a st at e l aw gr ound t hat i s

i ndependent of t he f eder al quest i on and adequat e t o suppor t t he

j udgment , " Wal ker v. Mar t i n, 131 S. Ct . 1120, 1127 ( 2011) ( second

al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , we l ook

t o t he "l ast r easoned opi ni on" of t he st at e cour t t o di scer n t he

-9-


10/30

gr ounds f or i t s deci si on. Yl st v. Nunnemaker , 501 U. S. 797, 803

( 1991) .

The l ast r easoned opi ni on here i s t he 2006 deci si on of

t he si ngl e j ust i ce of t he SJ C, who r ul ed t hat Lee' s appeal f r omt he

deni al of hi s 2004 mot i on f or a new t r i al di d not pr esent "a new

and subst ant i al quest i on whi ch ought t o be det er mi ned by the f ul l

cour t . " Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. Bef or e t he si ngl e j ust i ce

wer e t hr ee t ypes of cl ai ms: i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of t r i al

counsel , pr osecut or i al mi sconduct , and i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

post convi ct i on counsel ( namel y, t he at t or ney who handl ed hi s f i r st

mot i on f or a new t r i al i n 1989) . The si ngl e j ust i ce hel d t hat t he

f i r st t wo cl ai ms wer e not new, si nce t hey coul d have been r ai sed i n

an ear l i er pr oceedi ng; he hel d t hat t he cl ai m of i nef f ecti ve

assi st ance of post convi ct i on counsel , t hough "ar guabl y" new, was

never t hel ess not subst ant i al . 4 The par t i es agr ee t hat t he f i r st

t wo cl ai ms have been pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed, but di sagr ee over

whet her t he i nef f ect i veassi st ance- of - post convi ct i oncounsel cl ai m

has been def aul t ed, and whether t here i s r eason t o excuse any

def aul t . We di scuss t hese i ssues i n mor e det ai l bel ow.

4 The si ngl e j ust i ce r ef er r ed t o t hi s cl ai m as " i nef f ect i veassi st ance of appel l at e counsel who r epr esent ed [ Lee] on hi s f i r stmot i on f or new t r i al . " For t he sake of cl ar i t y, we r ef er t o t hi scl ai m as one of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of post convi ct i on counsel ,t o di st i ngui sh t he at t or ney i n quest i on f r om t he one who handl edLee' s di r ect appeal .

-10-


11/30

A. Whet her cl ai mof i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of post convi ct i oncounsel has been pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed under Mass. Gen.Laws ch. 278, 33E

Feder al habeas r evi ew of t he mer i t s of a cl ai m i s

pr ecl uded i f t her e i s an i ndependent and adequate st ate l aw gr ound

suppor t i ng t he st at e cour t ' s deci si on. Wal ker , 131 S. Ct . at 1127.

Thi s pr i nci pl e " i s grounded i n concer ns of comi t y and f eder al i sm. "

Cost a, 673 F. 3d at 23 ( quot i ng Col eman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722,

730 ( 1991) ) . A st at e pr ocedur al r ul e i s adequat e t o pr ecl ude

f eder al mer i t s r evi ew "so l ong as t he st at e r egul ar l y f ol l ows t he

r ul e and has not wai ved i t by rel yi ng on some ot her gr ound. "

J ewet t v. Br ady, 634 F. 3d 67, 76 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( ci t i ng Hor t on v.

Al l en, 370 F. 3d 75, 8081 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) . I f t he st at e cour t ' s

deci si on i ndeed r est s on some ot her , nonpr ocedur al gr ound, f eder al

mer i t s r evi ew wi l l be avai l abl e onl y i f t hat gr ound i s f eder al i n

nat ur e, or " i nt er woven" wi t h f eder al l aw. Br ewer v. Mar shal l , 119

F. 3d 993, 999 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( quot i ng Col eman, 501 U. S. at 733) .

We have pr evi ousl y addr essed t he "par t i cul ar wai ver r ul e"

of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, t he st at ut e speci f i c t o appeal s

of f i r st - degr ee mur der convi ct i ons, upon whi ch t he si ngl e j ust i ce

r el i ed i n hi s deci si on. Mendes v. Br ady, 656 F. 3d 126, 129 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) . Accor di ng t o t he scheme set f or t h i n t hat s t at ut e, a

def endant who has been convi ct ed of f i r st - degr ee mur der i s af f orded

pl enar y r evi ew on di r ect appeal t o t he SJ C. 33E. Fol l owi ng such

r evi ew, a def endant i s f r ee t o f i l e any number of mot i ons f or a new

-11-


12/30

t r i al i n st at e super i or cour t . See i d. He i s onl y ent i t l ed t o

appel l at e r evi ew of t he deni al of such a mot i on, however , i f a

si ngl e j ust i ce of t he SJ C det er mi nes t hat t he appeal pr esent s a

quest i on t hat i s bot h "new" and "subst ant i al , " f i t f or r esol ut i on

by t he f ul l cour t , i d. , or i f i t never t hel ess rai ses t he specter of

"a subst ant i al r i sk of a mi scar r i age of j ust i ce, " Commonweal t h v.

Dr ew, 447 Mass. 635, 638 (2006) .

"A def endant ' s cl ai mmi ght be ' new, ' f or exampl e, i f t he

appl i cabl e l aw was not suf f i ci ent l y devel oped at t he t i me of t r i al

or di r ect appeal , such t hat t he cl ai m coul d not r easonabl y have

been r ai sed i n t hose pr oceedi ngs; or i f evi dence not pr evi ousl y

avai l abl e comes to l i ght . " Commonweal t h v. Gunt er , 459 Mass. 480,

488 ( 2011) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . By cont r ast ,

[ a] n i ssue i s not ' new' wi t hi n t hemeani ng of [ 33E] wher e ei t her i t has al r eadybeen addr essed, or where i t coul d have beenaddr essed had t he def endant pr oper l y r ai sed i tat t r i al or on di r ect r evi ew. The st at ut er equi r es t hat t he def endant pr esent al l hi scl ai ms of er r or at t he ear l i est possi bl e t i me,and f ai l ur e t o do so pr ecl udes r el i ef on al lgr ounds gener al l y known and avai l abl e at t het i me of t r i al or appeal .

Commonweal t h v. Amber s, 397 Mass. 705, 707 ( 1986) ( i nt ernal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . An i ssue i s "subst ant i al " i f i t i s

"mer i t or i ous . . . i n t he sense of bei ng wor t hy of consi der at i on by

an appel l at e cour t . " Gunt er , 459 Mass. at 487. A deci si on by t he

si ngl e j ust i ce t hat a 33E appeal nei t her pr esent s a new and

subst ant i al quest i on nor r ai ses a subst ant i al r i sk of a mi scar r i age

-12-


13/30

of j ust i ce, i s " f i nal and unr evi ewabl e. " See Commonweal t h v.

Mont ei r o, 451 Mass. 1009, 1009 ( 2008) .

The si ngl e j ust i ce' s deter mi nat i on t hat an i ssue i s not

"new" wi t hi n the meani ng of 33E i s t ant amount t o a f i ndi ng of

pr ocedur al def aul t , " t he cl assi c exampl e of an i ndependent and

adequate st ate gr ound. " Si mpson, 175 F. 3d at 207. But t he si ngl e

j ust i ce' s deci si on need not r est on grounds of def aul t ; she may

i nst ead f i nd t hat t he i ssue i s i n f act new but never t hel ess

i nsubst ant i al , based on an appl i cat i on of t he subst ant i ve l egal

st andar d. " [ A] det er mi nat i on t hat t he i ssues ar e ' new' and si mpl y

not ' subst ant i al ' r esol ves t he cl ai ms on t he mer i t s and does not

si gnal pr ocedur al def aul t . " J ewet t , 634 F. 3d at 76 ( ci t i ng Phoeni x

v. Matesanz, 189 F. 3d 20, 2527 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ) ; see al so Si mpson,

175 F. 3d at 207 n. 4 ( "Suppose t hat t he deni al by t he [ si ngl e

j ust i ce] of t he 33E pet i t i on r est s . . . on a f i ndi ng t hat whi l e

pet i t i oner ' s cl ai mi s new, i t i s, nonet hel ess, not substant i al a

concl usi on r eached by anal ysi s under and r est i ng on f eder al l aw.

I t coul d be cogent l y ar gued t hat such a deni al does not r est pur el y

on st at e l aw and so i s not i ndependent . That hypot het i cal i nvol ves

cl ear r el i ance on f eder al l aw and i s vast l y di f f er ent f r oman or der

denyi ng 33E revi ew . . . [ where] t her e had been pr ocedur al

wai ver . " ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) .

Thi s, at l east on i t s f ace, i s st r ai ght f or war d enough

a f i ndi ng t hat t he i ssue i s not new amount s t o pr ocedur al def aul t ,

-13-


14/30

wher eas a f i ndi ng t hat t he i ssue i s new but not subst ant i al does

not . However , bot h t he di st r i ct cour t and t he par t i es have

i dent i f i ed some t ensi on i n our pr i or cases addr essi ng si ngl e

j ust i ces' appl i cat i on of t he new- and- subst ant i al r ul e. We t ake

t hi s oppor t uni t y t o di spel any uncer t ai nt y.

The source of t he conf usi on i s a passage i n our r ecent

deci si on i n Cost a, whi ch, when r ead i n i sol at i on, appear s t o

endor se t he pr oposi t i on t hat a si ngl e j ust i ce' s r esol ut i on of t he

subst ant i al i t y pr ong agai nst t he pet i t i oner by i t sel f si gnal s

pr ocedur al def aul t . I n t hat case, t he subst ant i ve i ssue under l yi ng

t he i nef f ecti veassi st ance- of - appel l at e- counsel cl ai m r ai sed on

appeal t o t he si ngl e j ust i ce ( speci f i cal l y, t he i nconsi st ent

t est i mony of a par t i cul ar wi t ness) had al r eady been revi ewed and

r ej ect ed t wi ce by t he SJ C, and was t her ef ore nei t her new nor

subst ant i al . See Cost a, 673 F. 3d at 24 n. 4. We r ej ect ed Cost a' s

ent r eat y f or mer i t s r evi ew, r easoni ng:

The Si ngl e J ust i ce' s f i ndi ng t hatnei t her of Cost a' s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance ofcounsel cl ai ms pr esent ed "new and subst ant i alquest i ons" wi t hi n t he meani ng of 33E r evi ewconst i t ut es an i ndependent and adequat e st ategr ound. The Si ngl e J ust i ce observed t hat bot hcl ai ms mer el y r ei t er at ed t he same subst ant i vechal l enge t o [ a t r i al wi t ness' s] credi bi l i t yal r eady deci ded agai nst Cost a on t he mer i t s.

Al t hough Cost a ar gues t hat hi s i nef f ect i venessof appel l at e counsel cl ai m necessar i l ypr esent s a "new" quest i on i n t hat i t coul d nothave been r ai sed unt i l af t er hi s di r ectappeal , t he Si ngl e J ust i ce al so f ound t hatt hi s cl ai m was not substant i al , r ender i ngCost a' s " newness" argument , were i t even

-14-


15/30

pl ausi bl e, i r r el evant . The Si ngl e J ust i ce' sf i ndi ng of a l ack of subst ant i al i t yconst i t ut es an i ndependent and adequat e st ategr ound i n and of i t sel f and act s t o barf eder al r evi ew. Mendes, 656 F. 3d at 128.

I d. at 24 ( emphasi s added) .

As t he di st r i ct cour t her e not ed, t he under l i ned t ext i n

par t i cul ar i s di f f i cul t t o r econci l e wi t h our pr i or hol di ngs,

di scussed above, t hat a det er mi nat i on of an i ssue' s

i nsubst ant i al i t y pr eser ves f eder al mer i t s r evi ew, pr ovi ded t hat t he

i ssue i s al so new. See, e. g. , J ewet t , 634 F. 3d at 76. Lee ar gues

t hat t hose pr i or hol di ngs r emai n good l aw.

We agr ee. Cost a di d not i mpose a new cat egor i cal bar t o

f eder al r evi ew of habeas pet i t i ons. I ndeed, when r ead i n

conj unct i on wi t h a f oot not e i n t he same case, i t i s cl ear t hat t he

Cost a deci si on as a whol e r eaf f i r ms t he gener al pr i nci pl e t hat a

si ngl e j ust i ce' s det er mi nat i on t hat an i ssue i s new but not

subst ant i al does not pr ecl ude f eder al habeas r evi ew on t he mer i t s.

As we obser ved i n that f oot not e:

Thi s [ t he pr i nci pl e t hat a si ngl ej ust i ce' s expl anat i on of her vi ews as t o whycl ai ms ar e not new and not subst ant i al doesnot conver t t he deci si on i nt o one on t hemer i t s] accor ds wi t h our pr i or case l aw. I nJ ewet t v. Br ady, 634 F. 3d 67 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ,we hel d t hat wher e, unl i ke her e, t he Si ngl e

J ust i ce f i nds t hat a cl ai m i s "new" wi t hi n t hemeani ng of 33E, a f ederal habeas cour t mustaccept t hi s as a bi ndi ng mer i t s det er mi nat i onof newness and may not l ook behi nd t her easoni ng. I d. at 76 ( "[ A] det er mi nat i on t hatt he i ssues are ' new' and si mpl y not' subst ant i al ' r esol ves t he cl ai ms on t he

-15-


16/30

mer i t s and does not si gnal pr ocedur aldef aul t . " ) . However , wher e, as her e, t heSi ngl e J ust i ce f i nds a cl ai m i s nei t her newnor subst ant i al under 33E, t hi s i s apr ocedur al bar t o f eder al habeas revi ew. I d.

Cost a, 673 F. 3d at 24 n. 5.

Thus, i t i s not t he case t hat a si ngl e j ust i ce' s f i ndi ng

of a l ack of subst ant i al i t y wi l l al ways bar mer i t s revi ew. Rat her ,

as per t he f act s of Cost a, a f i ndi ng of a l ack of subst ant i al i t y

pr ecl udes r evi ew onl y when i t i s accompani ed by t he concl usi on t hat

t he i ssue i s al so not new. I n essence, i t i s onl y t he f ai l ur e t o

sat i sf y t he "new" prong of t he 33E r ul e t hat si gnal s pr ocedur al

def aul t .

Her e, t he si ngl e j ust i ce det er mi ned t hat Lee' s cl ai ms

r egar di ng i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of t r i al counsel and pr osecut or i al

mi sconduct were not new because t hey coul d have been r ai sed on

di r ect appeal or i n hi s f i r st mot i on f or a new t r i al . As t he

par t i es agr ee, such a f i ndi ng amount s t o a pr ocedur al def aul t of

t hese cl ai ms. See, e. g. , Yeboah- Sef ah, 556 F. 3d at 7475. But t he

si ngl e j ust i ce di d not make a compar abl e f i ndi ng r egar di ng Lee' s

cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve assi stance of post convi ct i on counsel .

I nst ead, he obser ved, "Ar guabl y, t hi s i s [ Lee' s] f i r st oppor t uni t y

t o r ai se t he i ssue of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of [ post convi ct i on]

counsel who r epr esent ed hi m on hi s f i r st mot i on f or new t r i al .

However , even assumi ng t hat t hi s cl ai m coul d be new, i t i s not

subst ant i al . " Thi s concl usi on was suppor t ed by a "f ai r l y det ai l ed"

-16-


17/30

anal ysi s of t he mer i t s of t he i nef f ect i veassi st ance- of -

post convi ct i oncounsel cl ai msever al pages i n l engt h under t he

subst ant i ve l egal st andard of Commonweal t h v. Saf er i an, 366 Mass.

89, 96 ( 1974) . Phoeni x, 189 F. 3d at 25 n. 2.

The absence of any def i ni t e f i ndi ng as t o newness

di st i ngui shes t hi s case f r om ot her s such as Mendes, 656 F. 3d at

130, and Yeboah- Sef ah, 556 F. 3d at 75, wher e we have hel d t hat t he

adequacy and i ndependence of st at e l aw grounds are not under cut

when t he si ngl e j ust i ce f i nds pr ocedur al def aul t but al so br i ef l y

r evi ews t he mer i t s of t he cl ai m t o ensur e t hat t her e i s no

subst ant i al r i sk of a mi scar r i age of j ust i ce. Those cases make

pl ai n t hat pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed cl ai ms cannot be r esur r ect ed by

a si ngl e j ust i ce' s hol i st i c revi ew of t he mer i t s i n t he cont ext of

a mi scar r i age- of - j ust i ce anal ysi s. Her e, by cont r ast , t he si ngl e

j ust i ce avoi ded maki ng any det er mi nat i on as t o pr ocedural def aul t

i n connecti on wi t h t he cl ai m of i nef f ecti ve assi st ance of

post convi ct i on counsel , i nst ead r est i ng hi s deci si on on t he

subst ance of t hat cl ai m, whi ch i n hi s j udgment was weak, si nce Lee

had not demonst r ated t hat post convi ct i on counsel ' s per f ormance was

const i t ut i onal l y def i ci ent .

"Our i nqui r y does not , of cour se, end her e. Even hol di ng

t hat t he [ si ngl e] j ust i ce' s deci si on r est ed not on pr ocedur al

def aul t but on t he mer i t s of [ t he pet i t i oner ' s] i nef f ecti ve

assi st ance cl ai m, we may not ent er t ai n habeas r evi ew i f t he mer i t s

-17-


18/30

det er mi nat i on was gr ounded i n st ate l aw. " Phoeni x, 189 F. 3d at 26.

Al t hough t he si ngl e j ust i ce di d not ci t e f eder al const i t ut i onal

pr ovi si ons or case l aw i n hi s deci si on, Lee pr essed ar gument s

r egar di ng t he i nef f ect i veness of post convi ct i on counsel under bot h

t he f eder al and st at e Const i t ut i ons. Because t he st at e st andar d

under Commonweal t h v. Saf er i an, 366 Mass. 89, 96 ( 1974) , i s t he

"f unct i onal equi val ent " of t he f eder al st andar d of St r i ckl and v.

Washi ngt on, Ouber v. Guar i no, 293 F. 3d 19, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) , t he

si ngl e j ust i ce "necessar i l y r ej ect ed" Lee' s asser t i ons under t he

f eder al Const i t ut i on as wel l as st at e, Phoeni x, 189 F. 3d at 27.

Under t he ci r cumst ances, t hen, t he si ngl e j ust i ce' s deci si on as

t o t he i ssue of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of post convi ct i on counsel

onl y "f ai r l y appear [ s] t o r est pr i mar i l y on t he r esol ut i on of

[ Lee' s f eder al ] cl ai m[ ] , or t o be i nt er woven wi t h t h[ at ] cl ai m[ ] ,

and [ does] not cl ear l y and expr essl y rel y on an i ndependent and

adequate st ate gr ound. " 5 Phoeni x, 189 F. 3d at 26 ( quot i ng Col eman,

5 Respondent ar gues t hat t he si ngl e j ust i ce' s f ai l ur e t o"i ndi cat e, speci f i cal l y or ot her wi se, t hat hi s deci si on was basedon anyt hi ng ot her t han wai ver " di st i ngui shes t hi s case f r omPhoeni xv. Mat esanz, wher e t he si ngl e j ust i ce "speci f i cal l y i ndi cat ed t hathe was not di smi ssi ng [ t he] i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai m on t hegr ound of l ack of novel t y or on some other t heory compat i bl e wi t hwai ver . " 189 F. 3d 20, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) . But a st at e cour t neednot expl i ci t l y di savow any f eder al l aw gr ound f or i t s deci si on i n

or der f or habeas revi ew t o be appr opr i at e. Rat her , as di scussed,habeas r evi ew i s pr oper wher e t he st at e cour t deci si on " f ai r l yappear [ s] " t o r est on t he mer i t s of a f eder al cl ai m. Col eman v.Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 735 ( 1991) . I ndeed, t he onl y f ai r r eadi ngof t he si ngl e j ust i ce' s deci si on her e i s t hat i t r est ed on t hemer i t s of t he f eder al cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve assi stance ofpost convi ct i on counsel , gi ven t hat he decl i ned t o r esol ve t hat

-18-


19/30

501 U. S. at 735) . As a r esul t , t he i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

post convi ct i on counsel cl ai m has not been pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed.

Ther e i s, however , an i ndependent bar t o habeas r el i ef on

t hi s gr ound. 28 U. S. C. 2254( i ) pr ovi des t hat "[ t ] he

i nef f ect i veness or i ncompet ence of counsel dur i ng Feder al or St at e

col l at er al post - convi ct i on pr oceedi ngs shal l not be a gr ound f or

r el i ef i n a pr oceedi ng ar i si ng under sect i on 2254, " as t hi s appeal

does. 6 See al so Mar t el v. Cl ai r , 132 S. Ct . 1276, 1287 n. 3 ( 2012)

( "[ Sect i on] 2254( i ) pr ohi bi t s a cour t f r om gr ant i ng subst ant i ve

habeas r el i ef on t he basi s of a l awyer ' s i nef f ect i veness i n

post - convi ct i on pr oceedi ngs . . . . ") . Ther ef or e, al t hough Lee' s

cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of post convi ct i on counsel has not

been pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed, t he di st r i ct cour t was, i n any event ,

pr ecl uded f r om gr ant i ng r el i ef on t hat gr ound.

cl ai m on gr ounds of pr ocedur al def aul t .

6 The cl ai m of i nef f ecti ve assi st ance of post convi cti oncounsel at i ssue her e ar i ses out of a mot i on f or a new t r i al f i l ed

af t er Lee' s convi ct i on became f i nal on di r ect r evi ew; t he mot i onwas not one f i l ed pur suant t o Mass. R. App. 19( d) ( 1) , di scussedbel ow, pr i or t o pl enar y r evi ew by t he SJ C. As such, t he pr oceedi ngat i ssue i s pr oper l y char act er i zed as col l at er al i n nat ur e. SeeCommonweal t h v. Br ay, 407 Mass. 296, 298 ( 1990) ( ci t i ngCommonweal t h v. Br eese, 389 Mass. 540 ( 1983) ) ( mot i on f or new t r i alaf t er f i nal j udgment const i t ut es col l at er al pr oceedi ng) .

-19-


20/30

B. Whet her pr ocedur al def aul t of cl ai ms of i nef f ect i veassi st ance of t r i al counsel and pr osecut or i al mi sconductmay be excused

We next consi der whet her t he r emai ni ng cl ai ms of

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of t r i al counsel and pr osecut or i al

mi sconduct , t hough pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed, may never t hel ess be

r evi ewed on t he mer i t s.

A cl ai m t hat has been pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed may

never t hel ess be r evi ewed by a f eder al habeas cour t i f t he

pet i t i oner demonst r at es cause f or t he def aul t and pr ej udi ce

r esul t i ng t her ef r om, or can show "t hat f ai l ur e t o consi der t he

f eder al cl ai mwi l l r esul t i n a f undament al mi scar r i age of j ust i ce. "

Har r i s v. Reed, 489 U. S. 255, 262 ( 1989) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Lee pr esses t wo ost ensi bl e causes f or def aul t :

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of post convi ct i on counsel , and var i ous st at e

agenci es' f ai l ur e t o t ur n over document s t o hi s cur r ent counsel .

We consi der each i n t ur n.

Lee f i r st ar gues t hat t he at t or ney who handl ed hi s f i r st

mot i on f or a new t r i al i n 1989 was const i t ut i onal l y i nef f ect i ve i n

f ai l i ng t o pr esent t he t r i al - i nef f ecti veness cl ai ms r ai sed by hi s

cur r ent counsel i n t he l at est mot i on f or a new t r i al ; t hi s

post convi ct i on i nef f ect i veness, Lee mai nt ai ns, const i t ut es cause

f or def aul t i ng t he t r i al cl ai ms.

"To est abl i sh cause, t her e must be ' some obj ect i ve f act or

exter nal t o t he def ense' whi ch ' i mpeded counsel ' s ef f or t s t o compl y

-20-


21/30

wi t h t he St at e' s pr ocedur al r ul e. ' " Lynch, 438 F. 3d at 46 ( quot i ng

Mur r ay v. Car r i er , 477 U. S. 478, 488 ( 1986) ) . Al t hough

const i t ut i onal l y i nef f ecti ve assi st ance of counsel , at t r i al or on

di r ect appeal , i n f ai l i ng t o pr eser ve a cl ai m f or r evi ew may

const i t ut e cause f or def aul t , i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel i n

post convi ct i on pr oceedi ngs t ypi cal l y wi l l not . Col eman, 501 U. S.

at 752. That i s because, as t he Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned i n

Col eman, t her e can be no const i t ut i onal l y i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

counsel i n a pr oceedi ng i n whi ch t her e i s no const i t ut i onal r i ght

t o an at t or ney. I d. "Wher e a pet i t i oner def aul t s a cl ai m as a

r esul t of t he deni al of t he r i ght t o ef f ect i ve assi st ance of

counsel , t he St at e, whi ch i s r esponsi bl e f or t he deni al as a

const i t ut i onal mat t er , must bear t he cost of any resul t i ng def aul t

and t he har m t o st at e i nt er est s t hat f eder al habeas r evi ew

ent ai l s. " I d. at 754. But "[ a] di f f er ent al l ocat i on of costs i s

appr opr i at e i n t hose ci r cumst ances wher e the St ate has no

r esponsi bi l i t y t o ensur e t hat t he pet i t i oner was r epr esent ed by

compet ent counsel . " I d.

Lee f ocuses on t wo recent Supreme Cour t cases t hat set

f or t h, as nar r ow except i ons t o t he Col eman r ul e, speci f i c set s of

ci r cumst ances i n whi ch i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel i n

post convi ct i on pr oceedi ngs wi l l i ndeed be i mput ed t o t he st at e,

-21-


22/30

t her eby const i t ut i ng cause f or pr ocedur al def aul t . 7 I n Mar t i nez v.

Ryan, 132 S. Ct . 1309, 1315 ( 2012) , t he Cour t addr essed whether

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel dur i ng col l at er al post convi ct i on

pr oceedi ngs coul d const i t ut e cause f or def aul t i ng a cl ai m of

i nef f ecti ve assi st ance of t r i al counsel , i n t he cont ext of a st at e

scheme that pr ohi bi t ed such cl ai ms f r om bei ng r ai sed on di r ect

r evi ew. The Cour t obser ved t hat " [ b] y del i ber at el y choosi ng t o

move t r i al - i nef f ect i veness cl ai ms out si de of t he di r ect - appeal

pr ocess, wher e counsel i s const i t ut i onal l y guar ant eed, t he St at e

si gni f i cant l y di mi ni shes pr i soner s' abi l i t y t o f i l e such cl ai ms. "

Mar t i nez, 132 S. Ct . at 1318. I n or der t o vi ndi cat e a pr i soner ' s

r i ght t o pr esent such cl ai ms, t he Cour t hel d t hat i nef f ect i ve

assi st ance of counsel i n post convi ct i on pr oceedi ngs can const i t ut e

7 Respondent argues t hat Lee has wai ved hi s argument sconcer ni ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of t hese cases, Tr evi no v. Thal er , 133S. Ct . 1911 ( 2013) , and Mart i nez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct . 1309 ( 2012) ,by not r ai si ng t hem bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t . Lee f i l ed hi shabeas pet i t i on i n J ul y 2007 and t he di st r i ct cour t r ender ed i t sdeci si on i n December 2013; Trevi no and Mar t i nez were deci ded i n May2013 and Mar ch 2012, r espect i vel y. I t i s f ar f r om cl ear t hat al i t i gant wai ves an argument pr emi sed on new l aw t hat post dat es t hei ni t i al f i l i ng by near l y si x year s, wher e t he di st r i ct cour t hasf ai l ed t o t ake act i on on t he pet i t i on i n t he i nt er i m. Cf . Her ber tv. Di ckhaut , 695 F. 3d 105, 109 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "Ther e can be no

wai ver wher e a par t y l acked an oppor t uni t y t o rai se an ar gument . " ) .However , we decl i ne t o reach t he i ssue of wai ver because, asdi scussed i nf r a, t he r ul es announced i n Tr evi no, 133 S. Ct . at1921, and Mar t i nez, 132 S. Ct . at 131819, do not appl y t o Lee' scase i n any event . Cf . Yeboah- Sef ah v. Fi cco, 556 F. 3d 53, 68 n. 6( 2009) ( "[ B] ecause we easi l y r ej ect pet i t i oner ' s cl ai m on t hemer i t s, we need not r esol ve t hi s di sput e [ r egar di ng wai ver ] . " ) .

-22-


23/30

cause f or pr ocedur al def aul t , pr ovi ded cer t ai n ci r cumst ances ar e

pr esent :

( 1) t he cl ai m of " i nef f ect i ve assi stance oft r i al counsel " [ i s] a "substant i al " c l ai m; ( 2)

t he "cause" consi st [ s] of t her e bei ng "nocounsel " or onl y "i nef f ect i ve" counsel dur i ngt he st at e col l at er al r evi ew pr oceedi ng; ( 3)t he st at e col l at er al r evi ew pr oceedi ng [ i s]t he "i ni t i al " r evi ew pr oceedi ng i n r espect t ot he " i nef f ect i veassi stance- of - t r i al - counselcl ai m"; and ( 4) st at e l aw r equi r es t hat an"i nef f ecti ve assi st ance of t r i al counsel[ cl ai m] . . . be rai sed i n an i ni t i al - revi ewcol l at er al pr oceedi ng. "

Tr evi no v. Thal er , 133 S. Ct . 1911, 1918 ( 2013) ( f i nal al t er at i on

i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Mar t i nez, 132 S. Ct . at 131819) .

A year l at er , i n t he case of Tr evi no v. Thal er , t he Cour t

ext ended i t s hol di ng i n Mar t i nez t o i ncl ude not j ust scenar i os

wher e st at e l aw l i t er al l y bar s cl ai ms of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

t r i al counsel f r om bei ng r ai sed on di r ect r evi ew, but al so t hose

wher e, "as a mat t er of [ t he pr ocedur al syst em' s] st r uct ur e, desi gn,

and oper at i on[ , ] [ i t ] does not of f er most def endant s a meani ngf ul

oppor t uni t y t o pr esent [ such cl ai ms] on di r ect appeal . " 133 S. Ct .

at 1921. Accordi ng t o t he Texas pr ocedur al f r amework at i ssue i n

t hat case, t he abi l i t y t o r ai se a cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve assi stance

of t r i al counsel on di r ect appeal exi st ed as a hypot het i cal mat t er ,

but i n pr act i ce was so heavi l y ci r cumscr i bed as t o be r ender ed

ef f ect i vel y i l l usor y. Al t hough t he Texas Cour t of Cr i mi nal Appeal s

had r ecogni zed t hat i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of t r i al counsel cl ai ms

t ypi cal l y must be subst ant i at ed by i nf or mat i on i n t he t r i al r ecor d,

-23-


24/30

convi ct ed def endant s onl y have t hi r t y days af t er sent enci ng t o f i l e

a mot i on f or a new t r i al i n or der t o devel op t he r ecor d on appeal ;

i n addi t i on, t he t r i al cour t must di spose of such mot i ons wi t hi n

sevent y- f i ve days of sent enci ng. I d. at 1918 ( ci t i ng Tex. R. App.

P. 21. 4, 21. 8( a) , ( c) ) . Cr i t i cal l y, however , t he t r i al t r anscr i pt

need onl y be pr oduced wi t hi n 120 days of sent enci ng, and thi s

deadl i ne may be ext ended. As a r esul t , mot i ons f or a new t r i al

of t en must be made wi t hout t he assi st ance of t he t r i al t r anscr i pt ,

as was t he case f or Tr evi no. I d. at 191819 ( ci t i ng Tex. R. App.

P. 35. 2( b) , 35. 3( c) ) . "Thus, as t he Cour t of Cr i mi nal Appeal s has

concl uded, i n Texas ' a wr i t of habeas cor pus' i ssued i n st at e

col l at er al pr oceedi ngs or di nar i l y ' i s essent i al t o gat her i ng t he

f acts necessar y t o . . . eval uat e . . .

[ i nef f ect i veassi stance- of - t r i al - counsel ] cl ai ms, ' " whi ch, i n

pr act i ce, cannot meani ngf ul l y be pr esent ed on di r ect appeal . I d.

( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Ex par t e Tor r es, 943 S. W. 2d 469,

475 ( Tex. Cr i m. App. 1997) ( en banc) ) .

Taken t oget her , t he Mar t i nez/ Tr evi no except i on appl i es

onl y i n j ur i sdi ct i ons that ef f ect i vel y pr ohi bi t pr i soner s f r om

r ai si ng i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of t r i al counsel cl ai ms on di r ect

appeal , ei t her by l et t er or oper at i on of t he l aw. But , as

Respondent per suasi vel y ar gues, t hat i s not t he st at e of t he l aw i n

Massachuset t s. Al t hough i t i s t r ue, as Lee obser ves, t hat " t he

pr ef er r ed met hod f or r ai si ng a cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

-24-


25/30

counsel i s t hr ough a mot i on f or a new t r i al , " Commonweal t h v.

Zi nser , 446 Mass. 807, 810 ( 2006) , t he rul es gover ni ng appeal s i n

f i r st - degr ee mur der cases pr eser ve pr i soner s' abi l i t y t o r ai se such

cl ai ms on di r ect r evi ew vi a consol i dat i on, and i mpose no

unr eal i st i c t i me l i mi t s f or f i l i ng mot i ons f or a new t r i al , or any

t i me l i mi t s f or di sposi ng of such mot i ons, as Texas does. See

Mass. R. App. P. 19( d) ( 1) ( appel l ant i n f i r st - degr ee mur der case

shal l , wi t hi n 120 days of appeal bei ng docket ed i n SJ C, serve and

f i l e ei t her appel l at e br i ef or mot i on f or new t r i al ; t i me f or

f i l i ng may be enl arged upon showi ng of good cause) ; Mass. R. App.

P. 19( d) ( 2) ( " I f a mot i on f or a new t r i al i s r emanded t o t he

Super i or Cour t , t he di r ect appeal of t he convi ct i on shal l be st ayed

pendi ng deci si on on t he mot i on f or new t r i al . . . . An appeal by

t he def endant f r om t he deni al of a mot i on f or new t r i al shal l be

consol i dat ed wi t h t he di r ect appeal . ") . 8 I ndeed, di r ect appeal s i n

capi t al cases are f r equent l y consol i dat ed wi t h appeal s f r omdeni al s

of mot i ons f or a new t r i al . See, e. g. , Commonweal t h v. Mar t i n, 467

Mass. 291, 293 ( 2014) ( def endant ' s di r ect appeal consol i dat ed wi t h

deni al of mot i on f or new t r i al ) ; Commonweal t h v. Scot t , 428 Mass.

362, 364 (1998) ( same) ; Commonweal t h v. El l i son, 376 Mass. 1, 23

( 1978) ( same) .

Wher eas t he Texas syst emmakes i t "vi r t ual l y i mpossi bl e"

t o devel op a r ecor d subst ant i at i ng an i nef f ect i veassi st ance cl ai m

8 Thi s r ul e has been i n ef f ect i n Massachuset t s s i nce 1973.

-25-


26/30

i n t i me f or consi der at i on on di r ect appeal , Tr evi no, 133 S. Ct . at

1915 ( quot i ng Robi nson v. St at e, 16 S. W. 3d 808, 81011 ( Tex. Cr i m.

App. 2000) ) , Massachuset t s does j ust t he opposi t e: i t encour ages

t he devel opment of such a record vi a mot i on f or a new t r i al by

al l owi ng appel l ant s 120 days f r omt he docket i ng of t hei r appeal s t o

do so, whi ch they may choose t o do i nst ead of pr oceedi ng wi t h

di r ect r evi ew, see Mass. R. App. 19( d) ( 1) . Fur t her mor e, appeal s

f r omdeni al s of mot i ons f or a new t r i al t hat have been consol i dat ed

wi t h di r ect appeal s are af f or ded pl enar y revi ew pur suant t o 33E,

wher eas mot i ons f or a new t r i al f i l ed af t er t he SJ C has af f i r med a

convi ct i on on di r ect appeal ar e subj ect t o t he f ar nar r ower "new

and subst ant i al " revi ew by t he si ngl e j ust i ce. See 33E. Thus,

because Massachuset t s does i ndeed "af f ord[ ] meani ngf ul r evi ew of a

cl ai mof i nef f ecti ve assi st ance of t r i al counsel , " Trevi no, 133 S.

Ct . at 1919, Lee cannot cl ai m t he benef i t of t he Mar t i nez/ Tr evi no

except i on t o t he Col eman r ul e, and any i nef f ect i ve assi st ance by

t he at t or ney who handl ed hi s f i r st mot i on f or a new t r i al does not

const i t ut e cause f or pr ocedur al def aul t .

We t ur n next t o Lee' s second cl ai med cause f or def aul t .

Lee ar gues t hat " [ s] t at e gover nment of f i ci al s have pr event ed [ hi m]

f r om f ul l y devel opi ng hi s cl ai ms of i nef f ecti ve assi st ance of

counsel and pr osecut or i al mi sconduct by conceal i ng evi dence. " Lee

mai nt ai ns t hat t hi s gover nment al i nt r ansi gence const i t ut es " some

i nt er f er ence by of f i ci al s ma[ ki ng] compl i ance [ wi t h a st at e

-26-


27/30

pr ocedur al r ul e] i mpr act i cabl e, " whi ch suf f i ces t o show cause f or

pr ocedur al def aul t . Mur r ay, 477 U. S. at 488 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

The subst ance of Lee' s ar gument i s t hat of f i ci al s i n t he di st r i ct

at t or ney' s of f i ce and i n var i ous pol i ce depar t ment s have " r eneged"

on supposed commi t ment s t o pr ovi de Lee' s cur r ent counsel wi t h

copi es of r el evant pol i ce r epor t s, gr and j ur y mi nut es, wi t ness

st at ement s, and bal l i st i cs r epor t s. 9

The probl emwi t h t hi s cont ent i on i s t hat , i f t r ue, al l i t

shows i s t hat cur r ent counsel i s wi t hout cer t ai n document s; i t does

not account f or whet her or not t hose document s were i n the

possessi on of t he post convi ct i on counsel who commi t t ed pr ocedur al

def aul t by not r ai si ng cer t ai n cl ai ms i n t he f i r st mot i on f or a new

t r i al . Even assumi ng t hat t hat at t or ney i ndeed di d not have t he

document s, such a l ack pr ovi des onl y an at t enuat ed j ust i f i cat i on

f or def aul t i ng i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai ms. 10 Lee makes no

9 We ar e not i n a posi t i on t o expr ess an opi ni on r egar di ng t hever aci t y of Lee' s cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct at t or ney' s of f i ce andvar i ous pol i ce depar t ment s not par t i es t o thi s act i on have notcooperat ed i n t urni ng over r equest ed document s. We not e, however ,t hat Respondent subst ant i al l y compl i ed wi t h Rul e 5 of t he Rul esGover ni ng Sect i on 2254 Cases by f i l i ng st at e cour t docket sheet s,cour t document s, and pr i or deci si ons wi t h hi s suppl ement al answer .

10 I n a di f f er ent sect i on of hi s br i ef , Lee ar gues t hat t hegover nment wi t hhel d cer t ai n document s f r om t r i al counsel , i n

vi ol at i on of Br ady v. Mar yl and, 373 U. S. 83, 87 ( 1963) . Leef or war ds t hi s cont ent i on whi l e ar gui ng t he mer i t s of hi spr osecut or i al mi sconduct cl ai m; he makes no assert i on t hat a Br adyvi ol at i on const i t ut ed cause f or pr ocedur al def aul t . See Pr at t v.Uni t ed St at es, 129 F. 3d 54, 62 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( " [ A] r gument s notadvanced and devel oped i n an appel l ant ' s br i ef are deemedwai ved. " ) . Nor coul d he make such an assert i on, wher e t he

-27-


28/30

at t empt t o expl ai n, f or exampl e, how not havi ng access t o document s

such as gr and j ur y mi nut es pr event ed t he post convi ct i on counsel

f r omr ai si ng a cl ai mt hat t r i al counsel was i nef f ect i ve i n f ai l i ng

t o cal l a compet ent f i r earms exper t . See McCl eskey v. Zant , 499

U. S. 467, 497 ( 1991) ( "For cause to exi st , t he . . . gover nment

i nt er f er ence . . . must have pr event ed pet i t i oner f r om r ai si ng t he

cl ai m. " ) . Consequent l y, Lee cannot est abl i sh cause f or pr ocedur al

def aul t . I n l i ght of t hi s concl usi on, we do not r each t he quest i on

whet her Lee suf f er ed pr ej udi ce as a r esul t of t he def aul t .

We can st i l l excuse pr ocedur al def aul t upon a showi ng

t hat a f ai l ur e t o revi ew t he cl ai ms on t he mer i t s woul d r esul t i n

a " f undament al mi scar r i age of j ust i ce. " Har r i s, 489 U. S. at 262

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . "Thi s i s a nar r ow except i on t o

t he cause- and- pr ej udi ce i mper at i ve, sel dom t o be used, and

expl i ci t l y t i ed t o a showi ng of act ual i nnocence. " Bur ks v.

Duboi s, 55 F. 3d 712, 717 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( ci t i ng Schl up v. Del o,

513 U. S. 298, 321 ( 1995) ) . I n r ehear si ng t he mer i t s of hi s cl ai ms,

f oundat i on of t he al l eged Br ady vi ol at i on t hat "[ n] o def enseat t or ney has ever seen pol i ce r epor t s of t he i nt er vi ews wi t h t hevi ct i m" i s pr emi sed si mpl y on one unhel pf ul page of t r i alt r anscr i pt . That page cover s a di scussi on among t he def enseat t or ney, pr osecut or , and t r i al j udge concer ni ng pr et r i al mot i ons,

i n whi ch t he l at t er t wo di scussed t he vi ct i m' s st at ement whi l e i nt he hospi t al t hat he "woul dn' t be sur pr i sed i f Woody [ J anet Br ady' sex- husband] di d i t . " Al t hough def ense counsel t ol d t he cour t t hathe "hadn' t heard about Woody bef ore, " he di d so on t he heel s of t hecour t al l owi ng Lee' s mot i on t o be f ur ni shed wi t h al l st at ement smade by t he vi ct i m. Ther e i s no i ndi cat i on i n t he r ecor d t hat t hegover nment f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h t hi s order i n advance of t r i al .

-28-


29/30

Lee vi gor ousl y ar gues, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat t r i al counsel

f ai l ed t o put on si gni f i cant evi dence of a t hi r d- par t y cul pr i t ;

however , Lee has not endeavored t o make out a showi ng of a

f undament al mi scar r i age of j ust i ce such as woul d excuse pr ocedur al

def aul t . And whi l e Lee' s ar gument s about i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

t r i al counsel i nvi t e specul at i on about what mi ght have happened had

hi s at t or ney cal l ed cer t ai n wi t nesses or pur sued di f f er ent l i nes of

cr oss- exami nat i on, t hey ar e j ust t hat specul at i ve. He has not

made a showi ng of act ual i nnocence suppor t ed by "new r el i abl e

evi dence whet her i t be excul pat or y sci ent i f i c evi dence,

t r ust wor t hy eyewi t ness account s, or cr i t i cal physi cal evi dence

t hat was not pr esent ed at t r i al . " Schl up, 513 U. S. at 324; cf .

J anosky v. St . Amand, 594 F. 3d 39, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( " [ T] he

pet i t i oner has not at t empt ed t o make any such showi ng [ of act ual

i nnocence] , and none i s evi dent on t he f ace of t he r ecor d. " ) . Hi s

pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed cl ai ms of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of t r i al

counsel and pr osecut or i al mi sconduct t her ef or e cannot be

r esur r ect ed.

C. Mot i on f or di scover y

Lee cont ends f i nal l y that t he di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y

deni ed hi s mot i on f or di scover y. A deni al of habeas rel i ef i s not

appeal abl e unl ess t he di st r i ct cour t or cour t of appeal s has i ssued

a cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y as t o t he i ssue or i ssues t hat t he

pet i t i oner wi shes t o r ai se. 28 U. S. C. 2253( c) . Her e, t he

-29-


30/30

di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat a cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y

"shoul d i ssue on al l t hr ee cl ai ms, " namel y, i nef f ect i ve assi st ance

of t r i al counsel , i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of post convi ct i on counsel ,

and pr osecut or i al mi sconduct . Lee, 2013 WL 6865585, at *15. The

di st r i ct cour t ' s cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y di d not ext end t o t he

deni al of t he mot i on f or di scover y, and t hi s cour t was not at any

t i me r equest ed t o i ssue a suppl ement ar y cer t i f i cat e. Consequent l y,

t he i ssue i s wai ved and we decl i ne t o addr ess i t . See Per al t a v.

Uni t ed St at es, 597 F. 3d 74, 8384 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

III. Conclusion

The di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y hel d t hat Lee' s cl ai ms of

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of t r i al counsel and pr osecut or i al

mi sconduct have been pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed. Al t hough t he cl ai mof

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of post convi ct i on counsel has not been

pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed, i t never t hel ess cannot f or m t he basi s of

habeas rel i ef , per 28 U. S. C. 2254( i ) . We t her ef or e AFFI RM t he

j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t .

-30-

Lee v. Corsini, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of Lee v. Corsini, 1st Cir. (2015)