Espinal v. Bennett
| Decision Date | 05 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. CV-00-1337 (DGT)(RLM).,Civil Action No. CV-00-6536 (DGT)(RLM). |
| Citation | 588 F.Supp.2d 388 |
| Parties | Ramon ESPINAL, Petitioner, v. Floyd BENNETT, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Ruth Marjorie Liebesman, Attorney-at-Law, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Karol Baird Mangum, Morgan James Dennehy, Rhea Ann Grob, The Office of the District Attorney, Kings County, Brooklyn, NY, for Respondent.
Petitioner Ramon Espinal ("Ramon" or "petitioner")1 is currently serving a sentence of 58 and 1/3 years to life, following his conviction at trial on two counts of murder in the second degree, for the shooting deaths of Wilfredo Garcia ("Wilfredo") and Alberto Montanez, and one count of attempted murder in the second degree, for the shooting of Jose Cortes ("Cortes"). Petitioner was also sentenced to a concurrent sentence of 5 to 15 years for criminal possession of a weapon.
The events under review are not recent history. The shootings took place two decades ago, on the night of June 21, 1988 in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Ramon was arrested a year later, on June 19, 1989. This case first went to trial in January 1991. The first jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, and a retrial was ordered. The retrial commenced on March 25, 1991, and ended with a guilty verdict after three days of jury deliberation. Ramon was sentenced on April 29, 1991. Since that time, he has engaged in a series of direct and collateral attacks on his conviction in the state and federal courts.
This case is now before the court following petitioner's June 5, 2006 objections to the Corrected Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on May 23, 2006 (the "R & R"). Judge Mann has recommended that Ramon Espinal's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied, and that his case be dismissed. Petitioner objects on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel that falls below the standard permitted by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Petitioner also claims that he is actually innocent of the crimes for which he is currently imprisoned and that he is entitled to habeas relief on a free-standing claim of actual innocence. The Second Look Program of Brooklyn Law School was granted leave to appear as amicus curiae on June 28, 2006. The Second Look Program has argued for petitioner's actual innocence, principally through its November 15, 2005 Memorandum to the Brooklyn District Attorney's office (the "Second Look Report"), in which it documented its investigation into this case and offered evidence to support petitioner's alibi claims.
The evidence presented at trial was more than sufficient to allow a rational juror to find petitioner guilty of these crimes, and petitioner has failed to overcome this legal presumption of guilt. However, as explained below, the record viewed as a whole raises serious doubts about the defendant's actual guilt. Still, the record as it stands appears to be insufficiently strong to prove actual innocence to the degree that would be required should such a freestanding claim exist.2 House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 555, 126 S.Ct. 2064, 165 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006) ().
Nonetheless, petitioner has pointed to a constitutional claim supported by the record that cannot be dismissed as harmless. Principally, trial counsel's failure to explore and present available evidence—particularly counsel's failure to investigate a redacted police report that could have corroborated petitioner's alibi—undermines confidence in the reliability of petitioner's conviction at trial. Unfortunately, the witness identified in the redacted report, David Garcia ("David"), is now dead. See July 17, 2007 Tr. at 9. As a result, a clear picture of these incidents may never emerge. But petitioner has sufficiently established that his trial counsel was ineffective, and that he was prejudiced by that ineffectiveness, to substantiate his claims under Strickland.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained below, Ramon Espinal's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted.
A detailed recounting of the facts and procedural history of this case can be found in the R & R at pages 1 to 23. Accordingly, only a short summary is recounted here. Record citations are provided for those facts which do not appear, or which are recounted somewhat differently, in the R & R, or which are relevant to petitioner's objections.
(1)
Petitioner's conviction stems from three shootings near the corner of South 1st Street and Bedford Avenue, in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on June 21, 1988. The victims included Alberto Montanez, a 15-year old boy who was shot in the face and subsequently died; Wilfredo Garcia, who was shot twice in the back and died about a week after the incident; and Jose Cortes, who was shot once in the right leg. Petitioner was alleged to have been acting in concert with his brother, Reynaldo Espinal. Both Ramon and Reynaldo fled together to the Dominican Republic after the shootings. Although Ramon returned to New York the following year, and was arrested soon thereafter, Reynaldo has apparently resided in the Dominican Republic ever since.
The record shows that police from the 90th Precinct immediately responded to these shootings, and that Detectives Stephen Chmil ("Chmil") and Peter Vitulli ("Vitulli") immediately commenced an investigation. Petitioner, however, objects to the R & R's implication that Ramon Espinal was "immediately" identified as a suspect by police. Pet.'s Obj. at 2-5. Petitioner notes that on the night of the shootings police were canvassing local hospitals looking for "a male hispanic, light skinned, 5' 9", approximately 20 years of age seeking treatment for a gunshot wound." See Pet.'s Obj. at 2.3 Accordingly, petitioner argues that police were only initially seeking his brother Reynaldo, who fit that description.
Nonetheless, it remains clear that Ramon was identified as a suspect early in the police investigation.4 The day after the June 21, 1988 shootings, police interviewed the superintendent of the apartment building at 155 South Second Street, where the Espinal family resided. The super told police that petitioner's mother, Maximina Espinal, had told the super's wife that her sons, Ramon and Reynaldo Espinal, were said to have killed three people at the corner of Bedford Avenue and South Second Street, and that they had left for the Dominican Republic. On June 23, 1988, Detectives Chmil and Vitulli went to John F. Kennedy Airport and confirmed that two passengers with the name "R. Espinal" had purchased tickets in cash for a flight to Santo Domingo that departed some six or seven hours after the shootings. Accordingly, the police actually had reason to believe that Ramon was involved prior to June 24, 1988, when an unidentified individual told the detectives that he saw both Ramon and Reynaldo Espinal pull up to the corner in a red car on the night of the shootings. See R & R at 4; Pet.'s Obj. at 4.5
Ramon was arrested for these shootings the following year, on June 19, 1989, by Officer Louis Silva of the 67th Precinct. Officer Silva was pursuing Reynaldo Espinal in connection with a separate homicide investigation. In the course of that investigation he discovered Ramon hiding in a rear bedroom closet in the Brooklyn apartment of Reynaldo's former girlfriend.
Several hours later, at the 90th Precinct, Detectives Chmil and Vitulli interviewed petitioner, who was then 17 years old, after advising him of his Miranda rights. In the police report filed after the interview (known as a "DD-5 report"), Detective Chmil summarized Ramon's statement as follows:
Last year when the two guys were shot at South 1 & Bedford Ave. I was driving a red Firebird in the area of South 4th & Havemeyer. I saw my brother come running up South 4th St. He got in the car and told me some guy was shooting at him at South 1 & Bedford Ave. and the guy shot him in the hand, it was wrapped in a bandage. He told me he shot the guy that shot him in the hand. We then drove home to 366 Decatur St. The next day we left the country for Santo Domingo. About eight months ago I came back to New York.
DD-5 report for Ramon Espinal, attached as Second Look Rep. Ex. A.
At approximately 4:00 a.m. the following morning, petitioner was interviewed on videotape by Assistant District Attorney Allan Lewis and Detective Vitulli. Ramon, who was again given Miranda warnings, reiterated the substance of his statement to the Detectives. He again stated that he had encountered his brother near the corner of South 4th and Havemeyer after the June 21, 1988 shootings had taken place. During this interview, Ramon added that he was drag racing down Havemeyer when he saw his brother, and that the drag race was against two friends whom Ramon had encountered at a nearby gas station earlier that evening. See transcription of June 20, 1989 interview with Ramon Espinal, attached as Second Look Rep. Ex. A.
(2)
At a pretrial suppression hearing, privately retained defense counsel Barry Krinsky ("Krinsky"), moved unsuccessfully to suppress petitioner's post-arrest statements on the grounds that they were the tainted product of a warrantless arrest without probable cause and that the statements were not knowing or voluntary. Subsequently, petitioner went to trial in January 1991 before Justice Harold Fertig of the New York Supreme Court, Kings County. This jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. According to Krinsky, the first trial jury split ten to two in favor of acquittal. H. Tr. at 168-69.6
Ramon's retrial began on March...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosario v. Ercole
...and where the prosecution's case rested on only two eyewitnesses and limited corroborating evidence); see also Espinal v. Bennett, 588 F.Supp.2d 388, 402, 407-08 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (granting habeas relief when defense counsel failed to investigate a statement provided by a potential alibi witne......
-
Syed v. State
...investigations may not later be challenged as unreasonable. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Accord Espinal v. Bennett , 588 F.Supp.2d 388, 399 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) ("A reasonable decision to forego investigation may be based on a reasoned judgment that such investigation would be f......
-
People v. Irizarry
...statements were admissible because they were vital to the defense and bore sufficient indicia of reliability. See also Espinal v. Bennett, 588 F.Supp.2d 388 (E.D.N.Y.2008) ; Rosario v. Kuhlman, 839 F.2d 918 (1988) (Defendant satisfied two-part test: hearsay evidence was reliable and the dec......
-
United States v. Velazquez, 11-CR-639 (JFB)
...be based on a reasoned judgment that such investigation would be fruitless, wasteful, or even counterproductive." Espinal v. Bennett , 588 F.Supp.2d 388, 399 (E.D.N.Y.2008), aff'd , 342 Fed.Appx. 711 (2d Cir.2009) (citation omitted). Specifically, reasonable decisions not to pursue an avenu......