Cates v. United States, Case No. 14-CV-1092-JPS

• Decision Date: 10 July 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 14-CV-1092-JPS
• Parties: LADMARALD CATES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

LADMARALD CATES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Case No. 14-CV-1092-JPS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

July 10, 2015

ORDER

The petitioner, Ladmarald Cates, a former Milwaukee police officer was convicted by a jury of violating 18 U.S.C. § 242. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #22).¹ Specifically, he was accused and convicted of depriving a victim of her civil rights under color of law by sexually assaulting her while he was working as a police officer. (See Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #22). He has now moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket #1). The Court screened Mr. Cates' § 2255 motion, dismissing a number of claims and allowing Mr. Cates to proceed on others. (Docket #4). Mr. Cates asked the Court to reconsider its dismissal of a number of those claims (Docket #5), and the Court directed the parties to brief both the claims on which the Court allowed Mr. Cates to proceed and Mr. Cates' separate motion for reconsideration (Docket #6). The Government filed a brief addressing those matters (Docket #7) and Mr. Cates filed a response (Docket #8). The Government chose not to file a reply, so the Court views this matter as having been fully briefed and ready for decision.

The Court will begin its order on Mr. Cates' § 2255 motion by describing the background of this case in greater detail. It will then discuss Mr. Cates' specific claims. Finally, the Court will set forth its legal analysis.

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Indictment

The grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Mr. Cates on September 20, 2011. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #1). Count One charged that:

On or about July 16, 2010, at Milwaukee, in the state and Eastern District of Wisconsin, LADMARALD CATES acting under color of law as a police officer for the city [sic] of Milwaukee, wilfully subjected I.L. to the deprivation of rights secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, that is, the due process right to bodily integrity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The defendant did this by sexually assaulting I.L. This assault included aggravated sexual abuse and resulted in bodily injury. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.

(Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #1 at 1). Count Two charged that:

On or about July 16, 2010, at Milwaukee, in the state and Eastern District of Wisconsin, LADMARALD CATES used and carried a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence that could be prosecuted in a court of the United States and possessed a firearm in furtherance of that crime of violence, which was the offense charged in Count One of this indictment. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c)(1)(A).

(Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #1 at 2).

1.2 Pretrial Process

Attorney Bridget Boyle appeared on behalf of Mr. Cates. (See Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #2 (letter mailed to defendant in care of Ms. Boyle)). Atthe time, she was successful in arguing for pretrial release for Mr. Cates. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #4, #5).

Approximately one month later, this Court scheduled the case for a trial to begin on January 9, 2012. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #11). This left slightly less than three months for the parties to prepare for trial (and slightly less than four months between the grand jury's return of the indictment and the trial date). (See Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #11). Mr. Cates apparently opted to take the matter to trial, and, on December 30, 2011, the parties filed a joint final pretrial report. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #16).

That same day, the Government filed a trial brief, generally describing its view of the facts and the law. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #17). The Government provided that brief on its own initiative, apparently to provide the Court with a summary of its position (see Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #17 at 19); no response was necessary and Mr. Cates' attorney did not file one.

Also on December 30, 2011, the Government filed a motion in limine, seeking to bar evidence that the victim allegedly kicked a separate officer after Mr. Cates had allegedly sexually assaulted her. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #18). Mr. Cates, through Ms. Boyle, opposed the Government's motion in limine. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #20). Prior to trial, the Court gave the parties an opportunity to further argue that issue, which both parties did. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #26 at 1; Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #64 at 3:20-6:9). Ultimately, the Court sided with Mr. Cates, denying the Government's motion in limine and allowing Mr. Cates to introduce evidence regarding the victim's actions (and resulting arrest and statements to police). (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #64:10-23).

The Court held its final pretrial conference on January 4, 2012. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #19). At that conference, Ms. Boyle raised a new issueregarding prior statements made by the victim; the Government responded that there likely would not be a dispute over that issue. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #19 at 1). The Court then described its trial process. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #19 at 1). After that, the Government asked a question about juror selection; presented several stipulations between the parties; and asked whether the Court would rule on its motion in limine (which was still pending at the time. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #19 at 1). Ms. Boyle responded that she would shortly be filing a response to the motion in limine and raised an additional issue that may have required briefing from the parties. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #19 at 1). The Court closed the final pretrial conference by requesting that Ms. Boyle discuss with Mr. Cates the fact that his taking the case to trial might expose him to a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice and lack of ability to seek reduction for acceptance of responsibility. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #19 at 1-2). Aside from receiving Mr. Cates' response to the Government's motion in limine (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #20), that final pretrial conference was the last contact that the Court had with the parties prior to the start of trial (see Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #26).

1.3 Trial

1.3.1 Jury Selection and Opening Statements

The Court conducted voir dire and excused three jurors for cause. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #26 at 1-3). The parties then exercised their peremptory strikes, after which the jury was selected and sworn in. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #26 at 3). At no point during peremptory strikes or thereafter did Mr. Cates' attorney object to the Government's strikes or to the selected members of the jury. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #26 at 3).

The parties then provided opening statements, during which nothing of note occurred.

1.3.2 Government's First Witness: Victim

After opening statements, the Government called the victim as its first witness. (Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #26 at 3-4).

1.3.2.1 Victim's Direct Examination

On direct examination, the victim testified that:

(1) on the date that Mr. Cates had allegedly assaulted her, she had called the police after an altercation with her neighbors;

(2) Mr. Cates was on duty and responded to her call;

(3) he had previously pulled her over twice for traffic violations and that during the first traffic stop he had given her his phone number instead of a citation;

(4) after ensuring that no other individuals remained in the house, Mr. Cates ordered her to perform oral sex on him and to have vaginal sex with him;

(5) she complied out of fear, because he was a police officer, was much larger than her, and had a gun;

(6) Mr. Cates pulled her hair, grabbed her neck, and bent her over a sink to accomplish this; she did not immediately tell her boyfriend about the incident out of fear that her boyfriend would start a fight;

(7) she was angry about the treatment of her family by Mr. Cates' partner and was arrested;

(8) while in police custody, she told two of her friends (who were also in custody) about the incident;

(9) Mr. Cates spoke with her while she was in custody and, out of fear, she said that she was going to say that Mr. Cates' partner raped her;

(10) she became ill and was taken to the hospital; and(11) she was later interviewed by police about her allegations against Mr. Cates.

(Case No. 11-CR-200, Docket #64 at 36:19-77:21).

1.3.2.2 Victim's Cross Examination

Ms. Boyle then cross examined the victim. It appears that her plan on cross examination was two-fold: she attempted to both impeach the victim and also to elicit a more definite version of events, which might show that the victim's story was impossible, implausible, or inconsistent. Ms. Boyle attempted to impeach the victim by establishing that the victim:

(1) lied in a prior proceeding while under oath;

(2) when interviewed at the hospital, gave slightly inconsistent answers regarding

(a) who requested that the victim's children leave the residence,

(b) what occurred before the victim's boyfriend went to the store to get bottled water for Mr. Cates, and

(c) where and how the sexual assault occurred;

(3) told Mr. Cates that she would blame the rape on his partner;

(4) did not tell the first officer who interviewed her at the police station that she had been raped;

(5) provided slightly different answers regarding the appearance of Mr. Cates' penis; and

(6) had retained an attorney (implying that the victim planned to sue regarding the sexual assault).

Ms. Boyle also had the victim provide more details about the specifics of the event, including having the victim:

(1) acknowledge that she was treated in an ambulance shortly after the police arrived on scene and before she returned to her house;(2) acknowledge that, while Mr. Cates was in the house with her, she requested that her boyfriend leave the house to buy her a pack of cigarettes, thus leaving Mr. Cates and her alone;

(3) provide additional details about the sexual assault and what happened thereafter (specif

...