Eden v. Oberlander
| Decision Date | 08 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-5076 |
| Parties | JEFFREY EDEN v. DEREK OBERLANDER, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
JEFFREY EDEN
v.
DEREK OBERLANDER, et al.
Civil Action No. 21-5076
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
December 8, 2022
MEMORANDUM
KEARNEY, J.
The Commonwealth tried Jeffrey Eden for sexually assaulting two minor members of his family. The trial judge began trial with an opening jury instruction fully defining the Commonwealth's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The two minors testified. The trial judge provided closing instructions two days after the opening instructions in which she did not repeat the fulsome reasonable doubt charge. Mr. Eden's counsel did not object to the absence of a reasonable doubt charge in the closing instructions. The jury convicted. Mr. Eden appealed. Both the Pennsylvania Superior Court and Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his appeals although vacating one conviction unrelated to our review today. Mr. Eden timely petitioned for habeas relief on a variety of grounds. Judge Reid timely issued a comprehensive Report and Recommendation.
Mr. Eden objects to Judge Reid's Report and Recommendation on two grounds: the trial judge erred in failing to provide a closing instruction on reasonable doubt and his counsel provided ineffective assistance by not objecting at trial to the absence of reasonable doubt instruction. We studied the record and Judge Reid's thorough analysis. Mr. Eden's claims concerning the absence of a reasonable doubt instruction during the closing instructions is waived since he did not raise the issue during trial and is otherwise without authority. Mr. Eden also fails to show a basis for us to find ineffective assistance of his counsel. We adopt and approve Judge Reid's
Recommendations, dismiss and deny Mr. Eden's Petition for habeas relief, and find no grounds for a certificate of appealability.
I. Background
Jeffrey Eden spent the night at a hotel with his twelve or thirteen year old brother-in-law, A.S. sometime between 2009 and 2010.[1]The two shared a bed.[2]A.S. awoke during the night to find Mr. Eden touching his penis.[3]Mr. Eden stopped once A.S. ejaculated.[4] A.S. told his school principal about the sexual abuse on March 2, 2011.[5]A.S. later met with a police officer and recounted the details of the incident.[6]
A.S. later told an unidentified person Mr. Eden sexually abused him a second time.[7]A.S. slept at Mr. Eden's house about a year or two after the first incident and awoke during the night to Mr. Eden ripping off A.S.'s boxers and touching his penis until he ejaculated.[8]A.S. reported a third incident to a family court district attorney.[9]A.S. slept at Mr. Eden's house, at an unspecified date and time, and awoke to Mr. Eden performing oral sex on him.[10]
On June 2, 2011, A.S.'s sister, M.O., first told A.S. and then reported to the authorities Mr. Eden also sexually abused her at age eleven years old.[11]M.O. told police Mr. Eden would grope her when playing hide-and-seek and made sexual remarks about her body.[12]M.O. also reported an incident during the same timeframe where she woke up from a movie with Mr. Eden and found her underwear removed and her private area wet with something other than urine.[13]
The Commonwealth charges Mr. Eden.
Police arrested Mr. Eden on August 12, 2011.[14] The Commonwealth charged him with unlawful contact with a minor, endangering the welfare of a child, corruption of the morals of a minor, indecent assault without consent of other, rape (forcible compulsion), involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, statutory sexual assault, and sexual assault related to A.S.[15]The
Commonwealth separately charged him with criminal solicitation to commit rape by forcible compulsion, criminal solicitation to commit statutory sexual assault, corruption of the morals of a minor, and indecent assault related to M.O.[16]
A state court jury convicts Mr. Eden and the trial court imposes a sentence.
A jury trial began on June 23, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County.[17]The trial judge's first-day instructions included her definition of reasonable doubt.[18]The trial judge stated:
The charges brought against the defendant are accusations They are not proof that a defendant is guilty
A fundamental principle of our law is that you must presume the defendant is innocent. This means that you are to accept that the mere fact that he is charged with a crime does not mean that he is guilty of it.
He begins this case with a clean slate and he has no obligation to prove his innocence. Rather it is the Commonwealth must convince you that based on a fair consideration of all of the evidence that will be offered, each element of the offenses charged have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
To succeed in this effort, the Commonwealth must convince you that based on a fair consideration of all of the evidence that will be offered, each element of the offenses charged have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt that would cause a reasonably careful[,] a sensible person[,] to pause, hesitate or refrain from acting upon a matter of the highest importance in his or her own affairs.
A reasonable doubt must be a real doubt. It may not be an imagined one, nor a doubt manufactured to avoid carrying out an unpleasant duty.[19]
The evidence in the jury trial ended two days later.[20] A.S. and M.O. testified.[21]The trial judge gave a final charge to the jury two days after her opening instructions but did not re-define reasonable doubt.[22]The trial judge instead repeated to the jury Mr. Eden maintained the presumption of innocence “unless and until you conclude, based upon careful and impartial
consideration of the evidence, that the Commonwealth has proven him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges made against him.”[23]The trial judge also repeated the Commonwealth had the burden to prove each element of every crime beyond a reasonable doubt.[24]
The jury convicted Mr. Eden on June 25, 2014 of two counts of corrupting a minor, and one count each of unlawful contact with a minor, rape by forcible compulsion, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, statutory sexual assault, sexual assault, and indecent assault.[25]The jury acquitted Mr. Eden of one count each of criminal solicitation to commit rape by forcible compulsion and criminal solicitation to commit statutory sexual assault.[26]The trial court sentenced Mr. Eden to an aggregate term of incarceration between fifteen to thirty years on November 14, 2014.[27]
Mr. Eden appeals and seeks post-conviction collateral relief.
Mr. Eden appealed his conviction to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.[28]He raised fifteen claims challenging, among other things, certain evidentiary rulings made by the trial court, the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions given at the close of evidence, and the legality of his sentence.[29]Mr. Eden claimed the trial judge erred in failing to re-instruct the jury during the final charge on the definition of “reasonable doubt” and how reasonable doubt impacts the burden of proof as required by state and federal law which prejudiced Mr. Eden.[30] The Superior Court held Mr. Eden waived his claim because he failed to object to the jury charge at trial.[31]The Superior Court granted Mr. Eden relief on only one of his claims - arguing the trial court erred under Alleyne v. United States in sentencing him to the mandatory minimum on the charge of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse - but denied the rest of his claims.[32]The Superior Court affirmed Mr. Eden's conviction but vacated Mr. Eden's sentence for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.[33]
Mr. Eden petitioned for post-conviction relief under Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act on June 14, 2018 raising claims related to his trial counsel's effectiveness.[34]The postconviction court dismissed Mr. Eden's petition without a hearing on December 5, 2019.[35]
Mr. Eden appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court arguing ineffectiveness of his trial counsel for (1) failing to seek dismissal of his charges because the Commonwealth did not file Bills of Information; (2) failing to object when the trial judge did not instruct the jury in the closing jury charge on the definition of reasonable doubt; and (3) failing to object when the trial judge improperly read the jury charge for corruption of the morals of a minor.[36]The Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Eden “it may have been preferable for the trial court to provide a definition of reasonable doubt during its closing instructions[,]” but held the trial judge “accurately defined reasonable doubt in its opening instruction to the jury.”[37]It concluded Mr. Eden failed to establish the trial judge's failure to re-define reasonable doubt in the final charge to the jury prejudiced Mr. Eden in such a way where the outcome of trial would have been different but for his counsel's failure to object.[38]The Supreme Court affirmed the post-conviction's court denial of Mr. Eden's petition.[39]The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Mr. Eden's petition for allowance of appeal.[40]
Mr. Eden seeks federal habeas relief.
Mr. Eden timely petitioned for habeas relief.[41]His counseled petition raises the same fifteen claims raised on his direct appeal and the three claims raised in his post-conviction petition challenging certain evidentiary rulings made by the trial judge, the sufficiency of the evidence, the final instructions read to the jury, the legality of his sentence, and the effectiveness of his trial counsel.[42]Two of Mr. Eden's claims stem from the trial judge's failure to define “reasonable doubt” to the jury in her final charge at the close of evidence: (1) the trial judge failed to define “reasonable doubt” and how reasonable doubt impacts the burden of proof in the closing charge to
the jury which denied Mr. Eden of his due process rights and...
To continue reading
Request your trial