Duguay v. Spencer, Civil Action No. 03-11575-NMG.
| Decision Date | 03 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 03-11575-NMG. |
| Citation | 462 F.Supp.2d 115 |
| Parties | Timothy DUGUAY, Petitioner, v. Luis SPENCER, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Timothy Duguay, Norfolk, MA, pro se.
Annette C. Benedetto, Department of Attorney General, Boston, MA, for Respondent.
Timothy Duguay ("Duguay") brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The respondent, Luis Spencer ("Spencer"), filed the pending motion to dismiss the petition on June 20, 2006. Duguay opposes that motion to dismiss and has filed subsequent motions: 1) to amend his habeas petition, 2) for DNA testing/analysis of physical evidence, 3) for expansion of the record and 4) for an evidentiary hearing.
On November 7, 1995, a Plymouth County grand jury returned an indictment against Duguay charging him with the murder of Robert Madera ("Madera"). Duguay and Madera were neighbors and became involved in a homosexual relationship when Duguay was 17 years old and Madera was 12 years old.1 The relationship continued over the next five years until Madera's death. Madera alternated between maintaining intimacy with and distancing himself from Duguay.
After a period in which Duguay and Madera had maintained intimate relations, they planned to spend a Sunday night together, one night before Madera's murder. Duguay and Madera did not spend the night together, however, because Madera instead went out with a female friend and spent the night at his own house. The following morning, Duguay called Madera and demanded to know where he had been the night before. Duguay also drove to Madera's house twice that same day. Each time, Madera refused to talk to Duguay and told him to leave.
Duguay had a telephone conversation approximately one to two hours before Madera was murdered during which Duguay told a friend that he was tired of being "hurt" by Madera and that he was going to kill him. Approximately 20 minutes before Madera's death, Duguay telephoned Madera's home and left a recorded voice message for Madera's mother in which he informed her of his homosexual relationship with her son and that he was going to make her son "answer for the head games he's played with me." Duguay also told Madera's mother that her son "was not going to threaten me ... because I'm just going to turn myself in and I've already started that" and that she should "get ready for a fun ride at the courthouse."
Shortly before 8:00 p.m. on the night of the murder, Madera stumbled out of his house. He had been stabbed 21 times in his neck, face and chest. One of Madera's relatives, who lived in a neighboring house, saw Madera and telephoned emergency services. As the first emergency vehicle arrived on the victim's street, the driver noticed a person in dark clothing walking away from the victim's house. The emergency personnel were not able to resuscitate Madera and he died on the way to the hospital as a result of blood loss caused by the multiple stab wounds.
After learning from a neighbor that Duguay's vehicle was seen leaving the front of Madera's house earlier that evening, the police went to Duguay's house. When the police arrived, Duguay informed them that he knew they were coming. The police recited incomplete Miranda warnings to him and Duguay got his jacket and rode in a cruiser to the police station. In a conversation with police officers on the way to the station house, Duguay told the officers, "If I tell you what happened, you'll put me in jail for the rest of my life."
The police advised Duguay of his Miranda warnings again and then began to interview him at the police station. Duguay initially denied his sexual relationship with Madera but later admitted to it after police informed him that they knew about the message he had left Madera's mother. Duguay told the police that he had been wearing the same dark clothing since the middle of the day.
Duguay consented to testing for the presence of blood on his person and clothing. A police chemist performed an ortho-tolidine test. That test is for screening purposes only because it yields a positive result for substances as diverse as vegetation, food items and detergents as well as for human blood. Duguay tested positive on his hands, the soles of his feet and the soles of his sneakers.
Subsequent to the ortho-tolidine test, the police obtained a search warrant and performed the same testing on Duguay's house, car and clothing. Results were positive in Duguay's bathtub, car, on a light switch and clothing. Nevertheless, the police did not find Duguay's fingerprints at Madera's house and the hairs found there were inconsistent with the hair of either Madera or Duguay.
On November 24, 1997, Duguay was convicted of first degree murder on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. Duguay appealed and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ("the SJC") affirmed the judgment of conviction on December 7, 1999.
Duguay subsequently filed several post-conviction motions, which were denied by the trial court, as well as a motion for leave to appeal the denial of those motions with a single justice of the SJC pursuant to M.G.L. c. 278, § 33E, which was also denied. Duguay's post-conviction motions are described in greater detail below in the section on procedural default.
Duguay filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with this Court on August 20, 2003. The respondent filed the pending motion to dismiss on June 20, 2006. Duguay filed an opposition to that motion, a motion to amend his habeas petition and a motion for DNA testing/analysis of physical evidence on August 14, 2006. Duguay then filed motions for expansion of the record and for an evidentiary hearing on September 7, 2006.
The standard of review to be applied to Duguay's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and respondent's motion to dismiss is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEPA"). There are two potential bases for granting a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d): the state adjudication either 1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or 2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.
A state court decision is "contrary to" clearly established Supreme Court precedent if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently from a decision of the Supreme Court on a materially indistinguishable set of facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).
A state court decision is considered an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent if the state court identifies the correct legal rule but unreasonably applies it to the facts. Id. at 407, 120 S.Ct. 1495. An unreasonable application exists when there is "some increment of incorrectness beyond error." Norton v. Spencer, 351 F.3d at 8 (1st Cir.2003). A state court decision is "unreasonable if it is devoid of record support for its conclusion for its conclusion or is arbitrary." Id.
The respondent filed a motion to dismiss Duguay's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on June 20, 2006. On August 14, 2006, Duguay filed his opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss as well as a motion to amend his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Duguay requested therein that the Court dismiss without prejudice Grounds One and Three of his § 2254 petition. That request will be granted and therefore Grounds One and Three will be dismissed without prejudice. The remaining grounds for relief are addressed as follows.
In Ground Two, Duguay contests the trial court's admission into evidence of "highly unreliable and highly prejudicial" ortho-tolidine test results, absent corroborating blood and/or forensic evidence. Ortho-tolidine is a chemical that is used to detect the presence of blood. Duguay contends that the admission of the results of ortho-tolidine tests violated his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Prior to trial, Duguay filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the results of the ortho-tolidine tests, which was denied. The respondent does not dispute that Duguay has exhausted the remedies available in state court to challenge the introduction of this evidence. Rather, the respondent contends that Ground Two presents an issue of state law that is inappropriate for federal habeas corpus review.
A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus only when a prisoner is held in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Errors of state law, in and of themselves, do not provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. Estelle v McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).
Respondent contends that the admissibility of the results of ortho-tolidine tests is a question of state law only, and that such evidence is admissible in the Commonwealth. The SJC has held that results of ortho-tolidine tests, and expert testimony relating to such test results, are admissible in evidence even though such tests may demonstrate positive results for substances other than human blood. Commonwealth v. Gordon, 422 Mass. 816, 839-40, 666 N.E.2d 122 (1996). Because the admission of `the ortho-tolidine test results comports with state evidentiary law, habeas review is foreclosed on that ground.
Duguay further contends, however,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powers v. O'Brien
...Errors of state law, including evidentiary issues, do not in and of themselves provide a basis for habeas relief. Duguay v. Spencer, 462 F.Supp.2d 115, 119-120 (D.Mass.2006). The ALOFAR is not ambiguous, and this court concludes that the issue of the admissibility of the autopsy photographs......
-
Duguay v. Spencer, Civil Action No. 03-11575-NMG.
...unable to argue that the alleged ineffective representation was sufficient cause to excuse a procedural default. Duguay v. Spencer, 462 F.Supp.2d 115, 126-28 (D.Mass.2006). Similarly, this Court declined to consider petitioner's claim of ineffective appellate counsel as freestanding because......