James v. Sowders, 92-5660
| Decision Date | 05 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-5660,92-5660 |
| Citation | 992 F.2d 1216 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Michael P. JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dewey SOWDERS, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Before MERRITT, Chief Judge, and BOGGS and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges.
Michael P. James appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his Kentucky convictions for first degree rape, second degree burglary, receiving stolen property, and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. James contends that the Kentucky trial court's denial of a request for an admonition directing the jury not to draw any adverse inference from James's failure to testify was constitutional error.
Following his jury conviction, James was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment for the rape conviction, ten years' imprisonment for the burglary conviction, and one year's imprisonment for the receiving stolen property conviction. Because he was found to be a first degree persistent felony offender, James's rape sentence was enhanced to life imprisonment.
The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed James's conviction. James v. Kentucky, 647 S.W.2d 794 (Ky.1983). The United States Supreme Court, however, held that the trial court violated James's constitutional right against compulsory self-incrimination by denying his request for an admonition directing the jury not to draw any adverse inference from James's failure to testify. The Supreme Court remanded to the Kentucky Supreme Court to determine whether the violation was harmless error. James v. Kentucky, 466 U.S. 341 (1984). The Kentucky Supreme Court held the violation did constitute harmless error, and the United States Supreme Court denied James's petition for writ of certiorari. James v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 679 S.W.2d 238 (Ky.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1086 (1985).
Now, James attempts to address the same issue by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court dismissed James's petition with prejudice.
The harmless error rule applies to a state court's error in declining to give a "no adverse inference" instruction. United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (1983); Finney v. Rothgerber, 751 F.2d 858 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1020 (1985). Therefore, the question before this court is whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court's refusal to give a "no adverse inference" instruction had no effect on the ultimate outcome of the trial. United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. at 510-11.
James's defense at trial was that the victim, Donna Richardson, fabricated the entire story. The government's evidence consisted of Richardson's testimony and extrinsic evidence that corroborated her testimony.
Richardson testified that on April 23, 1982, she returned home to find that her apartment had been burglarized. A .22 caliber pistol that she kept underneath her bed pillow was missing. Richardson reported the serial number of the stolen pistol to the police and nailed her windows shut. James, her neighbor, noticed her nailing her windows shut and inquired about the incident.
On May 1, 1982, Richardson came home from work and discovered that the lower glass panel of her back storm door had been removed and a small window panel in the back door had been shattered. Although her bed pillows had been disturbed, nothing was...
To continue reading
Request your trial