Dearstyne v. Mazzuca

• Citation: 48 F.Supp.3d 222
• Decision Date: 03 March 2011
• Docket Number: No. 04–CV–741FJS/VEB.,04–CV–741FJS/VEB.
• Parties: Frank W. DEARSTYNE, Petitioner, v. William MAZZUCA, Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

48 F.Supp.3d 222

Frank W. DEARSTYNE, Petitioner
v.
William MAZZUCA, Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility, Respondent.

No. 04–CV–741FJS/VEB.

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed March 3, 2011.

James V. O'Gara, Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP, New York, NY, Lisa A. Peebles, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Syracuse, NY, for Petitioner.

48 F.Supp.3d 223

Paul B. Lyons, Alyson J. Gill, Office of Attorney General, New York, NY, for Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BIANCHINI, United States Magistrate Judge.

Table of Contents

I.	Introduction	225
II.	Background	225

A.	Facts	226
B.	State Court Proceedings	226

1.	Pre–Trial Proceedings	226
2.	Trial Proceedings	227
3.	Appellate Proceedings	228

C. Federal Habeas Corpus Proceedings 229

III. Discussion 230

A. Ground One—Speedy Trial 231

1.	State Court Proceedings	231
2.	Habeas Review	233

a.	State Law Claim	233
b.	Federal Constitutional Claim	233

i.	Reason for the Delay	234
ii.	Petitioner's Delay in Asserting Claim	234
iii.	Lack of Prejudice	235

3. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel 236

B. Ground Two—Admission of Petitioner's Statement to Police 238

1.	Factual Background	238
2.	State Court Proceedings	240
3.	Habeas Review	241

a.	Voluntariness of the Confession	241
b.	Failure to Comply with CPL § 710.60(6)	246

i.	State Court Proceedings and Rulings	246
ii.	The Trial Court's Failure to Adjudicate the Voluntariness Issue Was an Unreasonable Application of Clearly Established Supreme Court Law, Jackson v. Denno	248

C. Ground Three—DNA Evidence 252

1.	Factual Background	252
2.	Habeas Review	253

a. Brady Violation 253

i.	Exhaustion and Procedural Default	253
ii.	Merits Analysis	255

b.	Requests for DNA Testing	262
c.	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—Failure to Seek Forensic Testing of the Fluid Sample	267
d.	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—Failure to Object to Dr. Close's Testimony	269

...