Hall v. Beard

• Citation: 55 F.Supp.3d 618
• Decision Date: 22 October 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 05–cv–02523.
• Parties: Darrick U. HALL, Petitioner v. Jeffrey BEARD, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ; David DiGuglielmo, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford; and Franklin J. Tennis, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

55 F.Supp.3d 618

Darrick U. HALL, Petitioner

v.Jeffrey BEARD, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ; David DiGuglielmo, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford; and Franklin J. Tennis, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, Respondents.

Civil Action No. 05–cv–02523.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed Oct. 22, 2014.

[55 F.Supp.3d 629]

Cristi Charpentier, Esquire and James J. McHugh, Esq., for Petitioner.

Christopher D. Carusone, Esquire and Gerald P. Morano, Esq., for Respondents.

OPINION

JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF DECISION	631
PROCEDURAL HISTORY	632
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES	634

Petitioner's Contentions	634
Respondents' Contentions	635

STANDARD OF REVIEW	636
FACTS	636
DISCUSSION	637

Exhaustion of State Court Remedies	637
Procedural Default and the Relaxed Waiver Rule	638
Cause and Prejudice	641
Sentencing Phase Claims	643

Trial Counsel's Failure to Present Mitigation Evidence 643

Pennsylvania Court Decisions	643
Legal Standard for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel	645

Strickland Standard	645
Duty to Investigate Mitigating Evidence	646
American Bar Association Guidelines	649

Mitigation Evidence Presented at Penalty Phase	650
Mitigation Evidence Available at Time of Penalty Phase	651
Trial Counsel's Deficient Performance	657
Prejudice	667

Simmons Instruction	670
Catch–All Mitigating Factor Instruction	670
Grave Risk Aggravating Factor	672

Trial Court Error	673
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel	674

Proportionality Review	676
Victim Impact Testimony	679

PCRA Appeal	680
Guilt Phase Claims	680
Sentencing Phase Claims	680

Guilt Phase Claims 683

Prosecutorial Misconduct 683

Exhaustion	684
Fifth Amendment Right Against Self–Incrimination	687
Prejudicial and Inflammatory Statements in Violation of Due Process	688

Failure to Present Exculpatory Statement of Co–Defendant	689
Failure to Move In Limine to Redact Petitioner's Confession	692
Sufficiency of the Evidence	695

Exhaustion	695
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Decision	696
Merits Analysis	698

Suppression of Post–Arrest Statements 699

Waiver of Miranda Rights 699

Trial Court Findings of Fact	700
Direct Appeal	702
Exhaustion	702
Merits Analysis	703

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 706

Direct Appeal	707
Merits Analysis	707

Cumulative Effect of All Errors 709

CONCLUSION 710

[55 F.Supp.3d 631]

This matter is before the court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by petitioner Darrick U. Hall on February 17, 2006. Respondents are Jeffrey Beard, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; David Diguglielmo, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania; and Franklin J. Tennis, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, Pennsylvania.

Respondents filed an answer on May 30, 2006.¹

Petitioner filed a memorandum of law on October 6, 2006.² Respondents filed a memorandum of law on December 6, 2006.³ Finally, petitioner filed a reply brief on January 8, 2007.⁴ Oral argument was conducted on the petition on May 17, 2007.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

For the following reasons, I conclude that petitioner is entitled to relief from his death sentence because trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present significant mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of petitioner's trial. I further conclude that petitioner is not entitled to relief from his conviction.

Specifically, petitioner is entitled to a new sentencing hearing based upon claim one⁵ because trial counsel's investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of petitioner's trial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and because petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of trial counsel's deficient performance.

Petitioner's remaining claims are not meritorious. Specifically, in claim three, I conclude that the trial court's instruction on preponderance of the evidence given at the penalty phase hearing was not constitutionally deficient.

Regarding claim four, the testimony of the Commonwealth's expert witness regarding bullet ricochet was not speculative, and its admission did not violate petitioner's constitutional rights. Further, trial defense counsel's decision not to call a ballistics expert to rebut the Commonwealth's expert witness was a reasonable strategy and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

With respect to claim five, the prosecutor's statements during closing argument at the guilt phase of trial did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct which deprived petitioner of due process.

In claim six, the admission of the alleged victim impact statements did not deprive petitioner of fundamental fairness in his trial. Furthermore, trial defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to move to exclude these statements because the reliability of the proceedings was not undermined by the admission of the statements.

[55 F.Supp.3d 632]

Regarding claim eight, petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the failure to admit a co-defendant's statement because the statement was not necessarily exculpatory, and petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to move to admit the statement.

With respect to claim nine, trial counsel was not ineffective because there is no reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different had defendant's confession been redacted to exclude the phrase “white guy” in reference to the victim.

In claim ten, petitioner's due process rights were not violated because the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for Murder of the first degree.

Regarding claim eleven, petitioner's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by the trial court's failure to suppress petitioner's confession. In addition, trial defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to present additional witnesses at the suppression hearing because petitioner was not prejudiced by this decision.

Finally, petitioner's remaining claims two, seven, twelve, and thirteen are procedurally defaulted. Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted because the state court deemed claims two and seven waived, and because petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies regarding claims twelve and thirteen.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prosecuted petitioner Darrick U. Hall for the armed robbery of a Coatesville, Chester County, Pennsylvania laundromat and the shooting death of victim Donald Johnson. Petitioner was represented at his trial by retained counsel Robert E.H. Miller, Esquire.

On October 27, 1994, following a jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania, petitioner was convicted by a jury of Murder of the first degree,⁶ Recklessly endangering another person,⁷ Firearms not to be carried without a license,⁸ Robbery,⁹ and Criminal conspiracy to commit Robbery.¹⁰ Petitioner was acquitted of conspiracy to commit murder.¹¹

The penalty phase began the following day and the jury returned a sentence of death on October 29, 1994. The jury found the following two aggravating circumstances: (1) petitioner committed the killing while in the perpetration of a felony;¹² and (2) during the commission of the killing, petitioner knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victim.¹³

The jury found one mitigating factor pursuant to the catch-all category of “any other evidence of mitigation concerning the character and record of the defendant and the circumstances of his offense.”¹⁴ Specifically, the jury found that the events leading up to the fatal shot included the possibility of a struggle. Furthermore, the jury determined that the two aggravating factors outweighed the one mitigating factor.

[55 F.Supp.3d 633]

On November 7, 1994, the trial court imposed the jury's death sentence on the charge of Murder of the first degree. With respect to petitioner's other convictions, the trial judge imposed the following sentences: not less than two-and-one-half years nor more than five years imprisonment, concurrent to the death sentence, for Firearms not to be carried without a license; not less than ten years nor more than twenty years imprisonment, consecutive to the death sentence, for Robbery; and not less than five years nor more than ten years concurrent to the Robbery sentence, for Criminal conspiracy to commit Robbery. The trial judge entered a verdict of guilty without further imposition of sentence for Recklessly endangering another person.

On November 14, 1994, Vincent P. DiFabio, Esquire was appointed by the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County to represent petitioner in his direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. He filed a Notice of Appeal on November 28, 1994. On February 9, 1995, the trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) Opinion¹⁵ in response to petitioner's statement of matters complained of on appeal.

On May 22, 1995 the parties filed a joint motion for remand for an evidentiary hearing on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted the motion on June 29, 1995, and the trial court conducted a five-day evidentiary hearing on September 21, October 20, 25, 27 and November 15, 1995. On January 25, 1996 the trial court issued its findings of fact and credibility determinations.

On September 17, 1997 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of petitioner's sentence. Commonwealth v. Hall, 549 Pa. 269, 701 A.2d 190 (1997).

On January 8, 1998, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(j), then Pennsylvania Governor Thomas J. Ridge issued a death warrant for petitioner's execution. Petitioner, through counsel, Robert Brett Dunham, Esquire, filed a motion with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for a stay of execution.¹⁶ The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted petitioner's stay of execution on January 16, 1998 pending action by the United States Supreme Court on his petition for certiorari from the...