Jelinek v. Costello, 97-CV-2327 (JBW).
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) |
| Citation | 247 F.Supp.2d 212 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-CV-2327 (JBW).,97-CV-2327 (JBW). |
| Parties | Roger JELINEK, Petitioner, v. Joseph COSTELLO, Superintendent, Mid-State Correctional Facility, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 27 February 2003 |
v.
Joseph COSTELLO, Superintendent, Mid-State Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Page 213
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 214
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 215
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 216
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 217
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 218
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 219
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 220
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 221
Gregory Cooper Esq, New ork NY for Petitioner.
Denis Dillon District Attorney Nassau County, Mineola, NY, Tammy J. Smily Margarer E. Mainusch, Assistant District Attorney of Counsel, for Respondent.
WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.
I. Introduction .................................................... 224
II. Facts ........................................................... 226
A. Overview ...................................................... 226
B. Testimony of Complaining Witnesses ............................ 226
1. Child J.N .................................................. 227
a. Charges Related to J.N .................................. 227
b. Grand Jury Testimony of J.N ............................. 227
c. State Examination of J.N. at Trial....................... 229
d. Defense Examination of J.N. at Trial .................... 229
e. Jury Verdicts on Charges Related to J.N.................. 232
f. Disposition of Charges Related to J.N. on Appeal......... 232
2. Child J.C ...................................................232
a. Charges Relating to J.C...................................232
Page 222
b. Grand Jury Testimony of J.C...............................232
c. State Examination of J.C. at Trial........................233
d. Defense Examination of J.C. at Trial......................235
e. Jury Verdicts on Charges Relating to J.C..................237
f. Disposition on Appeal of Charges Relating to J.C..........237
3. Child C.H....................................................237
a. Charges Related to C.H....................................237
b. Grand Jury Testimony of C.H...............................237
c. State Examination of C.H. at Trial........................237
d. Defense Examination of C.H. at Trial......................238
e. Jury Verdicts on Charges Relating to C.H..................239
f. Disposition of Charges Related to C.H. on Appeal..........239
4. Child G.B....................................................239
a. Charges Related to G.B....................................239
b. Grand Jury Testimony of G.B...............................239
c. "Vulnerable Child Witness" Hearing........................240
d. State Examination of G.B. at Trial........................242
e. Defense Examination of G.B. at Trial......................242
f. Jury Verdict on Charges Related to G.B....................244
g. Disposition of Charges Related to G.B. on Appeal..........244
5. Child B.D....................................................244
a. Charges Related to B.D....................................244
b. Grand Jury Testimony of B.D...............................244
c. State Examination of B.D. at Trial........................245
d. Defense Examination of B.D. at Trial......................245
e. Jury Verdicts on Charges Related to B.D...................246
f. Disposition of Charges Related to B.D. on Appeal .........246
6. Child P.W....................................................246
a. Charges Related to P.W....................................246
b. Grand Jury Testimony of P.W...............................247
c. State Examination of P.W. at Trial .......................247
d. Defense Examination of P.W. at Trial......................247
e. Jury Verdicts on Charges Related to P.W...................247
f. Disposition of Charges Related to P.W. on Appeal..........247
7. Child C.S....................................................247
a. Charges Related to C.S....................................247
b. Grand Jury Testimony of C.S...............................248
c. State Examination of C.S. at Trial........................248
d. Defense Examination of C.S. at Trial......................249
e. Jury Verdicts on Charges Relating to C.S..................249
C. Testimony of Other State Witnesses...............................249
1. Detective Vashti Anderson.....................................249
2. Child Protective Services Caseworker Daniel Speicher..........250
3. Parents of the Victims........................................251
D. Defense Case ....................................................251
1. Defense Fact Witnesses........................................251
2. Testimony of Defendant........................................251
3. Character Witness ............................................252
E. Defendant's Application to Proceed Pro Se........................252
F. Appointment of Standby Counsel...................................252
G. Summation .......................................................253
H. Motions at End of Case...........................................253
I. Verdict and Sentence.............................................253
III. Procedural History of Direct Appeal.............................254
A. Summary of Jelinek's Post-Trial Representation...................254
B. Direct Appeal....................................................254
C. Material Variance Issue in State Court...........................254
D. Leave to Appeal to State Court of Appeals........................255
Page 223
IV. Procedural History of Initial Federal Habeas Proceedings (Filed as 97-CV-2327)
................................................................ 255
V. Procedural History of First State Section 440 and Coram Nobis
Proceedings.....................................................255
VI. Procedural History of Recommenced Federal Habeas Proceedings
(Filed as 98-CV-2298)............................................256
VII. Procedural History of Second State Section 440 and Coram Nobis
Proceedings.....................................................257
VIII.Procedural History of Current Federal Habeas Proceedings (Filed as 01-CV-2566)
.............................................................. 258
A. Pleadings......................................................258
B. Factual Hearing................................................259
IX. Law...............................................................261
A. AEDPA Standard of Review.......................................261
B. Statute of Limitations.........................................261
C. Exhaustion ....................................................262
D. Procedural Bar.................................................263
1. In General..................................................263
2. Cause for the Default.......................................263
3. Actual Innocence............................................263
E. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel..............................264
1. In General..................................................264
a. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel..................264
b. Ineffective Assistance of Standby Counsel................265
c. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel..............266
d. Strategic Choices........................................267
e. Exhaustion of Individual Claims of Ineffectiveness.......267
2. Failure to Dispute Government's Variance from the Indictment..267
3. Failure to Object to the Sufficiency of the Evidence..........270
4. Failure to Call Expert Witness................................271
5. Failure to Call Fact and Character Witnesses..................272
6. Failure to Consult with Defendant.............................272
7. Failure to Read Rosario Material .............................273
8. Failure to Request a Bill of Particulars and to Move for Severance
of Child Endangerment Charges................................273
9. Failure to Object to Indirect Hearsay.........................274
10.Failure to Introduce Witness's Prior Inconsistent Statements into
Evidence.....................................................274
11.Failure to Object to Introduction of Defendant's Inculpatory
Statements...................................................275
12.Spillover Effect..............................................276
F. Confrontation Clause..............................................277
G. Due Process Clause................................................278
1. Variance from the Indictment...................................278
2. Admission of Uncharged Crimes Testimony into Evidence..........279
3. Prolonged and Suggestive Questioning of Child Witnesses by the
Police........................................................279
4. Trial Court's "Vulnerable Witness" Inquiry.....................279
H. Sixth Amendment Right to Notice...................................280
I. Discretion to Fashion Relief......................................280
X. Application of Law to Facts..........................................280
A. Timeliness........................................................280
B. Ineffective Assistance of Trial and Appellate Counsel.............281
Page 224
1. Preliminary Observations..........................................281
a. Wealth and Representation......................................281
b. Generally Competent Performance of Trial Counsel...............281
c. Separate Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Trial and Appellate
Counsel.......................................................282
2. Unexhausted Ineffective-Assistance Claims ........................282
a. Failure to Object to Indirect Hearsay..........................283
b. Failure to Consult Experts.....................................283
c. Failure to Challenge Variance from the...To continue reading
Request your trial
38 cases
-
Walker v. Graham
...notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.”); see Jelinek v. Costello, 247 F.Supp.2d 212, 262–63 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (discussing discretionary denial of habeas petition on the merits). Walker's ineffective assistance of appellate co......
-
Dowtin v. Cohen
...misconduct); Cox v. Donnelly, 267 F.Supp.2d 418, 423-24 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (shifting burden of proof); Jelinek v. Costello, 247 F.Supp.2d 212, 266-67 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (right to self-representation); Stewart v. Senkowski, 00-CV-0806, 03-MISC-0066 (JBW), 2003 WL 21508320, **2-3, 2003 U.S. Dist. LE......
-
United States v. Scully
...evidence introduced in support of the dismissed or reversed counts requires the remaining convictions to be upset.” Jelinek v. Costello, 247 F.Supp.2d 212, 276 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (citing United States v. Rooney, 37 F.3d 847, 855 (2d Cir.1994) ). Stated otherwise, “[t]he concept of prejudicial s......
-
Velazquez v. Poole
...he or she fails to consult a criminal defendant and by doing so "materially hampers the fashioning of a defense," Jelinek v. Costello, 247 F.Supp.2d 212, 273 (E.D.N.Y. 2003), this does not appear to be the case in this instance. Indeed, petitioner has not shown that counsel did not discuss ......
Request a trial to view additional results