Coy v. Renico
| Decision Date | 15 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-CV-73129-DT.,04-CV-73129-DT. |
| Parties | Laurence Deane COY II, Petitioner, v. Paul RENICO, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Laurence Dean Coy, II, Ionia, MI, pro se.
Brenda E. Turner, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Respondent.
Table of Contents
I. BACKGROUND.............................................................747
II. LEGAL STANDARD.........................................................754
III. DISCUSSION.............................................................756
A. DNA Statistical Evidence Claim (Claim I)...........................756
1. Clearly Established Law........................................756
2. The DavislFrye Standard........................................756
3. The State Court Proceedings....................................757
a. The First Trial and Appeal.................................757
b. The Second Trial and Appeal................................758
4. Analysis.......................................................761
B. Hearsay Evidence Claim (Claim II)..................................763
1. Admission of the Evidence under Rule 803(3)....................763
2. Confrontation Clause...........................................764
a. Clearly Established Law....................................764
b. Analysis...................................................765
c. Impact of Crawford v. Washington..................772
C. Right to Present Defense Claims (Claims III & IV)......774
1. Clearly Established Law...................................774
2. Jordan McKee Testimony (Claim III)....................775
3. DNA Testing of Darnell Riddle (Claim IV)..................776
D. Sentencing Claim (Claim V)....................................778
1. Clearly Established Law...................................778
2. Analysis..................................................780
IV. ORDER...................................................................780
Petitioner Laurence Deane Coy, II, is a state prisoner, currently confined at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan. Petitioner was charged in state court with first degree murder, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.316. On December 29, 1998, petitioner was convicted of the lesser offense of second degree murder, MICH COW'. imprisonment. Petitioner appealed as of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals. On November 17, 2000, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed petitioner's conviction, concluding that the trial court erred in admitting DNA evidence without accompanying statistical evidence regarding the likelihood of a match between the sample and petitioner. See People v. Coy, 243 Mich. App, 283, 286-314, 620 N.W.2d 888, 891-904 (2000) ("Coy I").
Prior to retrial, an evidentiary hearing was held by the trial court to determine the admissibility of statistical evidence concerning the DNA analysis. The trial court ruled the evidence admissible. The extensive trial testimony leading to petitioner's conviction was accurately summarized in petitioner's brief on appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals:
The prosecution's theory in the case was that Mr. Coy was involved in a sexual relationship with the decedent, Ms. Davidson, and visited her at the apartment she shared with Christina McKee on the night of January 4, 1998. Ms. McKee left for work early on that evening. She was permitted to testify, over a defense hearsay objection, that prior to her leaving for work Ms. Davidson asked her to page Mr. Coy, as there was no working phone in the apartment, and remind him that he was supposed to come to the apartment that night. (T, 8/8 II, 96-98). She indicated that she was aware of the relationship between Ms. Davidson and Mr. Coy. Ms. McKee acknowledged that she did not attempt to call or page Mr. Coy as requested, and did not speak to him that evening. (T, 8/8 II, 99, 163).
Ms. McKee's two young sons, Joshua and Jordan, along with Ms. Davidson's son, were at the apartment with Ms. Davidson when Ms. McKee left for work. She testified that while at work, she was called by her brother, Darnell Riddle, and asked by him to take him shopping after they both got off work (he worked at a different location) for sheets for his new bed. (T, 8/8 II, 100). Ms. McKee testified she initially refused to do so, since she did not get off work until very late at night, but later decided to take him to a store and picked him up at his residence, and then went to a store. (T, 8/8 II, 102-105). A store surveillance video was introduced at trial showing Ms. McKee and Mr. Riddle at the store at approximately 2:45 am.
Ms. McKee testified that when she returned home to the apartment, at approximately 3:30 am on the 5th, she became concerned because the front door to the apartment was unlocked. (T, 8/8 II, 108). She stated she went inside and first checked on the children, who were fine, and then went to Ms. Davidson's bedroom. There she saw Ms. Davidson's body lying on the floor, with a considerable amount of blood on the body and in parts of the room. (T, 8/8 II, 112-116). Ms. McKee then took the children from the apartment and had a neighbor call the police.
Ms. McKee testified that when she got home that night she noticed a set of headphones connected to the stereo, and indicated that the headphones were ones Mr. Coy had brought to the apartment because neighbors had complained about loud music. (T, 8/8 II, 110-111). She also testified that there was an ashtray containing the remains of a marijuana cigarette, evidence of incense having been burned, and ashtrays with Newport and Newport Light cigarette butts. (T, 8/8 II, 120-128, 174-176). According to McKee, none of these items were there when she left for work. She asserted that Mr. Coy would smoke marijuana at the apartment, and had previously burned incense there (T, 8/8 II, 123-127). She agreed, however, that she told the police that neither Mr. Coy nor Ms. Davidson smoked cigarettes. (T, 8/9 I, 10-11). Ms. McKee later acknowledged that after the death she did use Ms. Davidson's identification to attempt to get cable service. (T, 8/9 I, 4).
Ms. McKee stated that when she first spoke to the police, she gave them the names of Andre Settler, a maintenance man at the apartment complex, and Kareem Thrash (who was the father of Ms. Davidson's child), along with several other men, as possible suspects in the case, but did not mention Mr. Coy. (T, 8/8/ II, 138; 8/9 I, 14-16). She indicated that Mr. Settler had come to their apartment several times without notice or being invited, that Ms. Davidson had referred to him as the "maintenance man from Hell," and that he had gotten upset at one time because Ms. Davidson was with Mr. Coy. (T, 8/8 II, 188-189). Ms. McKee testified that during the morning of the 5th, after she spoke to the police, she went to see Mr. Coy where he was working and told him of Ms. Davidson's death. According to the witness, when she asked him if he had come over to the apartment the prior night, he stated that he had not and that he had been stranded at his sister's house. (T, 8/8 II, 135-136). However, during the cross-examination when shown a record of her interview with the police on January 12, she acknowledged that she only assumed he had been at his sister's house, and admitted he had not said that to her. (T, 8/9 I, 20). Ms. McKee testified she did not recall seeing any cuts on Mr. Coy's hands, or bandages, when she spoke to him on the 5th. (T, 8/8 II, 164).
The medical examiner testified that Ms. Davidson died from several stab wounds to the back. (T, 8/14 II, 76-77). The body showed evidence of numerous stab wounds, some of which were characterized by the medical examiner as defensive wounds, and evidence of bruising on the face. There was no physical evidence of any forced sexual penetration. (T, 8/14 II, 97-98). When shown a knife blade that was found by the police on Ms. Davidson's bed, the doctor was of the opinion that this knife could have caused the stab wounds. (T, 8/14 II, 58-59). The toxicology report on the body showed evidence that Ms. Davidson had recently ingested marijuana. (T, 8/14 II, 98-100). He could not determine the time of death to any degree of certainty. (T, 8/14 II, 109-110).
The prosecution presented a great deal of testimony from police officers and emergency personnel who responded to the apartment. There was no evidence of any forced entry into the apartment. A sliding door to a balcony was found open, but no footprints or other evidence was found either outside the balcony or on the porch indicating that someone had entered the apartment through that door (it was raining and the ground was wet that night). (T, 8/16 I, 28-30). A knife block containing a set of steak knifes very similar to the handleless blade found on the bed was located in the kitchen, with some of the slots for knives being empty. Samples of blood stains were collected from various items in the apartment, most significantly from the knife blade on the bed and from a door handle to Ms. Davidson's bedroom. Those samples were submitted for analysis. No fingerprints identifiable as coming from Mr. Coy were found anywhere in the apartment. (T, 8/10 II, 27, 34-34). The police located what they believed were blood stains on the outside door to the apartment building. Later, they searched through Ms. Davidson's car, which Ms. McKee had been driving on the night of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Warden
...a particular hearsay statement qualifies as "testimonial," Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts still controls.Coy v. Renico, 414 F.Supp.2d 744, 773 (E.D.Mich. 2006) (quoting United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2005)); Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 83-84 (1st Cir. 2004). ......
-
Allen v. Warden, Toledo Corr. Inst.
...qualifies as 'testimonial,' Crawford is inapplicable and [Ohio v.] Roberts [448 U.S. 56 (1980)] still controls." Coy v. Renico, 414 F.Supp.2d 744, 773 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (citing United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2005); Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 83-84 (1st Cir.2004); ......
-
Jordan v. Sheets
...a particular hearsay statement qualifies as "testimonial," Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts still controls.Coy v. Renico, 414 F.Supp.2d 744, 773 (E.D. Mich.2006) (quoting United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2005)). The Supreme Court declined to define a comprehensive ......
-
Williams v. Warden
...a particular hearsay statement qualifies as "testimonial," Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts still controls. Coy v. Renico, 414 F.Supp.2d 744, 773 (E.D. Mich 2006) (quoting United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2005)); Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 83-84 (1st Cir. 2004).......