Bronson v. Kauffman

• Docket Number: Civil Action 2:19-cv-1519
• Decision Date: 26 January 2023
• Parties: JOHN IRA BRONSON, JR., Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT KEVIN KAUFFMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

1

JOHN IRA BRONSON, JR., Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT KEVIN KAUFFMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents.

Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-1519

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh

January 26, 2023

W Scott Hardy United States District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ^[1]

Cynthia Reed Eddy United States Magistrate Judge

I. RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, John Ira Bronson, Jr. (“Bronson”), is a state prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and currently confined at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon. He filed pro se a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the judgment of sentence imposed on him on January 24, 2012, by the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania, at Criminal Case CP-63-CR-0002217-2011. For the reasons below, it is recommended that the Petition be denied with prejudice and a certificate of appealability be denied on all claims.

II. REPORT

A. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal habeas statute applicable to prisoners in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. It permits a federal court to grant a state prisoner the writ of habeas corpus “on the ground that he or she is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It is Bronson's burden to prove that he is entitled to the writ. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see, e.g., Vickers v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, 858 F.3d 841, 848-49 (3d Cir. 2017). There are other prerequisites that he must satisfy before he can receive habeas relief on his claims. For example, the burden imposed on him by the standard of review enacted by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) (which is discussed below). But, ultimately, Bronson cannot receive federal habeas relief unless he establishes that he is in custody in violation of his federal constitutional rights. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see, e.g., Vickers, 858 F.3d at 849.

B. Relevant and Procedural Background^[2]

The case arises from the shooting death of John Lynn Newman (“Newman”) on February 3, 2003, in California, Pennsylvania. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania set forth a comprehensive factual and procedural background underlying Bronson's conviction in its decision affirming the judgment of sentence; thus, the undersigned need not offer an extensive factual background. In short,

In 2002, Newman was approached by the PSP [(Pennsylvania State Police)] and informed “that he had been investigated and [that] felony drug charges against him [were] pending.” In October of that year, Trooper Aaron Borello (“Trooper Borello”) approached Newman about becoming a confidential informant (“C.I.”) for the PSP. Trooper Borello and Newman then set up performing a buy/bust involving Newman's supplier, [Bronson]. After [Bronson] was observed selling 200 pills of Oxycodone to Newman, he was arrested. The PSP searched [Bronson's] home and found about $384,000 in cash which was seized.¹

¹ [Bronson] eventually pled guilty to drug trafficking and was incarcerated.

After his arrest, [Bronson] began acting as a C.I., first with the PSP and then for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“F.B.I.”). While working with the PSP, [Bronson] asked Trooper Borello directly if it was Newman who had informed on him. Unfortunately, [Bronson]'s participation as a C.I. was fruitless and ended “within a week” prior to Newman's death.

See Commonwealth v. Bronson, No. 560 WDA 2012, 2014 WL 10790332, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 2014) (ECF No. 46-3 at p. 1) (quoting Trial Court's 1925(a) Opinion, March 26, 2013) (ECF 46-4)).^[3] See also Affidavit of Probable Cause (ECF 46-11 at p. 15).^[4] “It took several years for criminal charges to be filed in this ‘cold case'.” Commonwealth v. Duncan, No. 237 WDA 2015, 2016 WL 5858270, slip op. at p. 4 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 7, 2015) (ECF No. 48-2 at p. 5).

“On August 10, 2011, following the recommendations of the grand jury, the Commonwealth charged [Bronson] by criminal complaint with criminal homicide, criminal solicitation (homicide), and criminal conspiracy (homicide). Superior Court Memo. at *4 (ECF No. 46-3 at p. 3).

The Commonwealth's motion to consolidate Bronson's case with that of his co-conspirators Michael Clark Duncan and Howard Irwin,^[5] was granted over Bronson's objections.

A jury trial commenced on January 11, 2012, before Judge Janet Moschetta Bell. At the conclusion of the trial, the “jury found that Newman's death was the result of a conspiracy and/or solicitation between John Ira Bronson, Jr. (“Bronson”), the defendant herein, and his co-defendant at trial, Michael Clark Duncan (“Duncan”).” Trial Court's 1925(a) Opinion at p. 1, March 26, 2013. (ECF No. 46-4). Bronson was found guilty of Murder in the First Degree, Solicitation to Commit Murder, and Conspiracy to Commit Murder. Duncan was found guilty of Murder in the First Degree and Conspiracy to Commit Murder. Commonwealth v. Duncan, No. 1751 WDA 2018, 2020 WL 416364, at *1 (Pa. Super. Jan. 27, 2020). Bronson and Duncan were each sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment on their murder convictions. Bronson also received a consecutive term of 10 to 20 years for criminal solicitation. No further penalty was given on the conspiracy conviction. Duncan received a consecutive term of not less than fifteen nor more than thirty years' incarceration for the conspiracy conviction. Id.

Throughout the pre-trial and trial proceedings, Bronson was represented by Attorney Keith Emerick. No post-trial motions were filed. On March 30, 2012, Bronson, through Attorney Emerick, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which was docketed at No. 560 WDA 2012.^[6] On October 1, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied Bronson's petition for allowance of appeal on May 1, 2015. Bronson did not seek further review.

After his direct appeal concluded, Bronson, filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction collateral relief under Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), in which he raised seven issues:

ISSUE ONE: Systematic exclusion of blacks from the community were not represented in the jury wheels, pools of names, panels, or venires

ISSUE TWO: Jury biased in favor of the District Attorney's Office polluted the fair trial process

ISSUE THREE: Former District Attorney JOHN C. PETTIT's intentional prejudice to deny fair trial

ISSUE FOUR: Counsel was ineffective for failing to request a missing evidence instruction to charge the jury

ISSUE FIVE: Counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a demurrer/judgment of acquittal and arrest of judgment because the Commonwealth offered evidence with two opposing propositions and by application of law proved neither

ISSUE SIX: Commonwealth surprise witness admitted his perjury at jury trial to another inmate in confidence

ISSUE SEVEN: BRONSON'S entitlement to relief entitles DUNCAN to relief and vice versa

PCRA Petition, filed 9/2/15 (ECF No. 46-6).

The trial court, now the PCRA court,^[7] appointed Attorney Stephen Paul as PCRA counsel for Bronson on September 4, 2015. Attorney Paul was subsequently permitted to withdraw as counsel as he previously had been appointed to represent Michael Duncan in his PCRA proceedings.^[8] (ECF No. 46-8 at p.1; and ECF No. 46-37 at p. 13). On November 16, 2015, the court appointed Attorney David B. Wolf to represent Bronson during the PCRA proceedings. On July 13, 2016, Attorney Wolf filed a no-merit letter and petition to withdraw pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 213 (Pa. 1988), and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988). (ECF No. 46-8). In the no-merit letter, Attorney Wolf addressed each of the seven issues raised by Bronson in his pro se PCRA Petition and concluded that none of the issues entitled Bronson to relief. After the no-merit letter was filed, the state court docket reflects that on August 30, 2016 and again on September 2, 2016, Bronson filed pro se motions for the appointment of new counsel. These motions were denied by the PCRA court on November 3, 2016.

Judge Gilman held a hearing on October 4, 2016, only on Bronson's first claim: “whether the Court excluded black persons from the jury pool.” N.T., 10/4/2016 (ECF 46-9 at p. 2). Bronson was present at the hearing, along with Attorney Wolf. Testifying at the hearing was Patrick Grimm, the District Court Administrator for Washington County, and Attorney Keith Emerick, Bronson's trial attorney.

On October 17, 2016, Judge Gilman filed an Order and Notice dated October 14, 2016 (the “Notice of Dismissal”), in which (i) Bronson's “claim that African American persons from Washington County were systematically excluded from prospective jury pools,” was dismissed, (ii) Attorney Wolf's motion to withdraw was granted, and (iii) Bronson was notified that the Court intended to dismiss the remaining six issues raised in the PCRA Petition without a hearing as they were determined to be without merit. (ECF No. 46-10). Bronson was advised that he had until November 14, 2016, to respond to the Notice of Dismissal.

Rather than filing a response to the Notice of Dismissal,^[9] the PCRA court received a “Amended Post Relief Act Petition,” dated November 9, 2016, in which Bronson, pro se, raised two new ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims: that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to have Judge Moschetta Bell disqualify herself from presiding over the trial and that counsel was ineffective “for the failure to object to the presentment of known false testimony of Commonwealths key...