Sasnett v. Endicott

Decision Date25 November 1997
Docket NumberNo. 97-2435,97-2435
Citation132 F.3d 36
PartiesNOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit. Sylvester John SASNETT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey P. ENDICOTT, Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, No. 96 C 832; Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.

Before FAIRCHILD, CUMMINGS, MANION, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Sylvester Sasnett appeals the denial of his § 2254 petition by the district court. A jury convicted Sasnett for the rape of Lisa Turner, a 19-year-old mildly retarded, developmentally disabled woman, during the burglary of her family's home. Sasnett alleges two Sixth Amendment violations in his petition: 1) the admission of the testimony of Lisa's therapist improperly bolstered Lisa's testimony in violation of the Confrontation Clause; and 2) the failure to secure an expert witness to rebut the therapist's testimony constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court rejected both claims. We affirm.

I. Standard of Review

A § 2254 petition can only be granted when the state court's treatment of the claim "resulted in 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). State court legal determinations are reviewed de novo, see Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 741, 748 (7th Cir.1997), while state court factual determinations are presumed correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. See § 2254(e)(1).

II. Confrontation Clause Claim The only evidence offered by the state that linked Sasnett with the rape was the testimony of the victim. After a brief cross-examination of the victim that highlighted some inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, the state offered the testimony of Judith Sweet, a therapist who had personally worked with Lisa for several years. The trial court allowed Sweet to testify about Lisa's mental capacity, ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and ability to recall historical facts, because "the jury saw her testify with her obvious limitations, and the way she looks, and the way she walks and talks, and ... they're entitled to have the testimony of a therapist who has been working with her."

When questioned about Lisa's ability to recall facts, Sweet testified as follows:

Lisa is incredible with her memory and always has been. Her ability to recall is almost picture perfect. And, again, I think that relates to her developmental disability, because people with a developmental disability have only one way to learn, and that's by memory. They cannot think through a process, they cannot make decisions, they cannot learn by thinking through, they can only learn by memory.

So, their memory serves them in order to get through life. So she could recall almost every detail of every instance. She also, does not have the capability of elaborating on her memory, she can't elaborate the way you and I might in looking back. She only will recall the way it was

Sasnett claims that this testimony invaded the province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, in violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause However, the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit the bolstering of witnesses, but rather is primarily a guarantee of the right of the accused to cross-examine his accusers, and to confront his accusers face to face at trial. See, e.g., Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-16 (1988). Both Lisa and Sweet were present in the courtroom, and Sasnett cross-examined both of them, Thus. there was no violation of the Confrontation Clause.

III. Ineffective assistance of counsel claim

Sasnett's second claim is that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial because his counsel did not request an independent expert to evaluate Lisa's ability to recall facts. Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Sasnett must show both that his attorney's...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT