Jones v. Annucci

• Decision Date: 26 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 9:14–cv–00405–JKS.,9:14–cv–00405–JKS.
• Citation: 124 F.Supp.3d 103
• Parties: Shelton C. JONES, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner, New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

124 F.Supp.3d 103

Shelton C. JONES, Petitioner,
v.
Anthony J. ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner, New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision,¹ Respondent.

No. 9:14–cv–00405–JKS.

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Signed Aug. 26, 2015.

124 F.Supp.3d 110

Shelton C. Jones, Albion, NY, pro se.

Thomas B. Litsky, New York State Attorney General, New York, NY, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR., Senior District Judge.

Shelton C. Jones, a New York state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. At the time he filed his Petition, Jones was in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and incarcerated at Orleans Correctional Facility. The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision's inmate locator website (http://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov/, Department ID Number 11–B–0687) indicates that Jones has received a merit release to supervised parole. Respondent has answered the Petition, and Jones has replied.

124 F.Supp.3d 111

I. BACKGROUND/PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On November 13, 2009, Jones was charged with two counts of third-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance arising from his sale of cocaine to a confidential informant ("CI") on November 3 and 5. Jones proceeded to jury trial on the charges on August 4, 2010. At trial, the CI, a 23–year–old heroin and cocaine addict with a criminal history dating back to 2003, and Detective Sergeant Casey Caratelli, who had arranged for the CI to solicit drugs from Jones, testified for the prosecution. After Caratelli's testimony, the court conducted a chambers conference out of the jury's presence where the defense stipulated into evidence People's Exhibit 1 through 6, which included laboratory analysis reports establishing that the substance in the bags the CI gave to Caratelli was cocaine. The prosecution then rested its case, and the defense also rested without presenting evidence.

During closing arguments, the defense argued that the CI's testimony was not credible, and she had the motive and opportunity to falsely accuse Jones to secure favorable treatment in her own pending cases. The defense also argued that Caratelli's search of the CI before and after the buys was inadequate and the evidence was insufficient because, although he could see the CI walk up the stairs to the residence where Jones was staying, Caratelli did not actually see her enter the residence. In response, the prosecutor argued in summation that "drug dealers don't do things on Main Street. They do it in homes, they do it in secret places, cars." The prosecutor further stated:

[The CI] admits to what she's done. She pleads guilty and that's what she's done all the way through her criminal history. She's a thief because she's a drug addict. Drug dealers create these. [Jones] is a classic drug dealer. He's up here from New York City, big flashy car, sets up camp at Camp Street in Sidney, starts selling drugs. [The CI] is credible. You should convict [Jones].

After the trial court gave the standard jury charges, the jury began deliberations. After approximately one hour of deliberations, the jury sent a note asking for the judge's charges, including the definition of the charges. The jury was then called back into the courtroom, and the court again read the legal elements of the two counts of third-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance. After a juror expressed that this was not what the jury was looking for, the court re-read the charge about a full and fair evaluation of the evidence. A juror then asked for "anything for reasonable doubt," and the trial court again charged "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" and also read the charges regarding the duties of the members of the jury, the different types of evidence, and evaluating the truthfulness and accuracy of each witness.

After the jury had resumed deliberations for approximately 15 minutes, it sent a note stating, "We the jury are unable to come to a unanimous discussion (sic). 5 not guilty; 7 guilty." The jury was then brought back into the courtroom and given the following charge, also known as an Allen charge:²

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have a note indicating that you have

124 F.Supp.3d 112

been unable to agree on a verdict. As I told you in my initial instructions, any verdict that you return, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. If you cannot reach a unanimous agreement, you cannot return a verdict, a new trial will have to be scheduled before a different jury. It is not, however, uncommon for a jury to have difficulty initially in reaching a unanimous verdict, and it is not uncommon for a jury to believe that they will never be able to reach a unanimous verdict but after further deliberations most juries are able to reach a unanimous verdict. And so I will ask you to continue your deliberations.

But before I do, I want to remind you that when this trial began, many prospective jurors were called and questioned, many were excused for one reason or another, but you, ladies and gentlemen, were selected to serve. That means that of all of the prospective jurors called in this case, you were the ones whom both sides expressed confidence in. Both sides were convinced that each of you would be fair and impartial, that each of you would listen carefully to the evidence and to the arguments and to your fellow jurors and work hard to reach a unanimous verdict that was consistent with the law and the evidence. Both sides continue to have confidence in you, as do I.

Ladies and gentlemen, you make up a very good jury. There is no reason to believe that the presentation of this case again would be to a jury that is any more intelligent, reasonable, hard working or fairer than you are. I want to emphasize that I'm not asking any juror to violate his or her conscience or to abandon his or her best judgment. Any verdict that you reach must be a verdict of each juror and not mere acquiescence to the conclusion of others, but I am asking that you continue deliberating and to resume your deliberations with an open mind.

Start with a fresh slate. Do not be bound by how you felt before, whether you favored conviction or acquittal. Have the courage to be flexible, be willing to change your position if reevaluation of the evidence convinces you that a change is appropriate. Do not, out of pride or stubbornness, adhere to an opinion or conclusion that you no longer believe is correct. Be honest with yourselves and with the other jurors. Listen to the other jurors and evaluate what they have to say. Do not let anything prevent you from carefully considering what they said.

Remember that each of you made a commitment when you became a juror that requires you to reason and deliberate together to reach a fair and a just verdict based only on the evidence.

Of course while a discussion among all jurors may at times be intense, I'm sure you understand that it can and should be respectful of the feelings and opinions of other jurors. I urge that each of you make every possible effort to arrive at a just verdict here. Make certain that the decision that you reach is based solely on the evidence and the law, that it is not influenced or affected by sympathy for or against any individual or for or against either side. Be sure that no baseless speculation, no bias or prejudice for or against any individual enters into your deliberations. If I can help you in any way, whether through a further or repeated read back or through a clarification or restatement of the law, I stand ready to do so.

Again, please make every effort consistent with your conscience and the evidence in this case to harmonize your views and decision in this case with

124 F.Supp.3d 113

those of the other jurors. To the best of your ability, I ask you to apply common sense and good judgment.

Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate that the process of deliberation can be difficult. Frankly, it wasn't intended to be easy, so in accord with your oath, please continue to deliberate with a view toward reaching a verdict.

Neither party objected to the charge as given. After another hour of deliberation, the jury sent a note and was called back into the courtroom. The jury asked for certain testimony of Detective Caratelli, which was read back to them. They then returned to deliberations and, after another 35 minutes, sent a note that read, "We the jury can not (sic) make a decision. 5 guilty; 7 non guilty." The trial court then responded in relevant part:

I've received another note from you indicating that you are still unable to reach a verdict. As I told you in my earlier instructions, any decision that you reach must be a unanimous agreement of all of you. It appears that you have gotten yourselves into a position where at the moment you are unable to agree. It's getting late, so after consultation with the attorneys, I'm going to send you home for the evening and ask you to be back here at 9:30 tomorrow morning. Hopefully, with a chance to think about this case overnight, you will be able to resume your discussions and hopefully come to a unanimous verdict.

If you could do so without violating individual conscience, it is important

...