Klein v. Kaufmann, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0065
| Decision Date | 20 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0065 |
| Parties | JAMES KLEIN, Petitioner, v. KEVIN KAUFMANN, et al., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case involves a double execution-type homicide occurring in 2002. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeks relief on the basis of various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In a Report and Recommendation addressing these claims, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition be denied. Petitioner has filed, pro se, Objections to this Report and Recommendation. For the following reasons, I will overrule the Objections and deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. However, because reasonable jurists could disagree with the resolution of the constitutional claims at issue, I will grant a certificate of appealability.
On October 18, 2004, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder, a violation of the Uniform Firearms Act, and possession of an instrument of crime. The trial court imposed two life imprisonment sentences for the murders and lesser sentences for the remaining offenses.
The two state courts that considered whether Petitioner's counsel was constitutionally ineffective did not provide an in-depth analysis of the trial record. The facts as summarized by the Pennsylvania Superior Court are as follows:
The putative prologue to the killings was the kidnapping and beating of Appellant by his eventual victims, Danny Jones and Dwight Jenkins. Appellant had been released when he agreed to lead his captors to the house of one Melvin Marrero, whom Jones and Jenkins had apparently attempted to kill on an earlier occasion. On March 7, 2002, Jones and Jenkins met Appellant at a diner in New Jersey, and drove with him to the 6400 block of Tulip Street in Philadelphia where Appellant shot and killed both men, firing several more shots at the victims before fleeing in a car waiting for him around the corner. He then absconded to Las Vegas, where he was later arrested.
The PCRA court provided a somewhat more detailed summary of the facts:
(Id., Ex. B (citations to record omitted).)
Given the sparsity of the state courts' factual summaries and because the facts presented at trial are important to resolution of the issues before me, a more comprehensive recitation of the trial record is warranted.
The jury first heard from Police Officers Adrian Makuch and Officer Edward Schikel, both of whom worked with the crime scene unit of the Philadelphia Police Department. Officer Makuch explained that he processed the crime scene, and stated that the victims were shot while sitting in a Plymouth Voyager minivan on Tulip Street in Philadelphia. (N.T. 10/12/04, 23:17-49:7.) Officer Shikel photographed the minivan, recovered multiple objects from the car, took several upholstery samples for DNA analysis, and performed a fingerprint examination. (Id. at 49:18-64:9.) None of the evidence recovered connected Petitioner to the crime.
The prosecution then called Bennett Preston, M.D., the medical examiner on the case, who testified that he performed the postmortem examinations on the victims and found that they had suffered gunshot wounds to the head, and that one had suffered a gunshot wound to his hand. Dr. Preston described the entry points of the bullets and opined that the cause of death was homicide,but he was not able to conclude whether the victims were shot from inside or outside of the car. (N.T. 10/12/04, 3:15-18:14.)
David Foster testified that the night before the murders (March 6, 2002), he was "hanging out" at his house with a few friends including the two victims, Jones and Jenkins. Jones told Foster that he was supposed to meet Petitioner later that night at the Vincenttown Diner and then was going to Philadelphia to the house of a man named Melvin Marrero. (Id. at 22:4-24:9.) Although Foster asked if he could go too, Jones told him he did not want anyone else there. (Id. at 25:21-26:12.) Jones and Jenkins left Foster's house and, fifteen minutes later, Jones called Foster and relayed that Defendant was already waiting for them at the diner. (Id. at 25:6-11.) Foster testified that he received a second call from Jones at approximately 11:15 to 11:30 p.m., saying that Jones was on the way to Philadelphia and everything was "fine." Foster told Jones to call him "when he got there and everything was over," but Jones never called him back. (Id. at 28:3-29:25.) After calling Jones about fifteen times, Foster and two friends drove to Philadelphia, towards Marrero's house, arriving at approximately seven or eight o'clock the following morning. (Id. at 29:24-32:25.) At a nearby location, only blocks away from the crime scene, Foster stated that he saw Petitioner and Marrero's brother, Stevie Marrero, coming out of an alley. (Id. at 33:2-25.) Foster made eye contact with Petitioner, after which Petitioner and Stevie Marrero ran back down the alley, crossed the main street, and got into a car. (Id. at 34:2-35:13.) Foster started following Petitioner's car, but lost him at some point. (Id. at 35:17-36:4.)
On cross-examination, Foster admitted hearing that the victims (Jones and Jenkins) were involved with strong-arming and robbing drug dealers, that they had robbed and shot an individual named Ketkarun Boonsong after breaking into his house, and that the victims had "shot up" MelvinMarrero's car on a prior occasion. (Id. at 38:4-42:3.) Foster also acknowledged that he did not know about the crime scene location until he saw it on the news that morning. (Id. at 43:17-49:7.)
Melvin Marrero, who was serving a sentence for "drugs and guns," then testified that he knew both Petitioner and the victims. (Id. at 61:3-62:13.) The prosecutor presented Marrero with a signed, seven-page, written statement that Marrero provided to police on September 21, 2002, which contained the following information: Marrero had been shot at by the victims on a prior occasion; the victims had previously kidnapped and beaten Petitioner; and Petitioner called him on his cell phone to confess that he had killed the victims, Jones and Jenkins.3 (Id. at 79:2-84:6.)
Marrero denied the contents of that statement and claimed it was coerced, insisting that police kept him in a room without feeding him, told him he was a suspect in a homicide, and refused to let him call his lawyer. (Id. at 67:13-68:6, 96:7-25.) The only portion of his statement with which Marrero agreed was the portion stating that Jones and Jenkins had previously "shot up" his truck while he was in it. (Id. at 80:3-81:12, 106:23-107:24.)4
On cross-examination, defense counsel reaffirmed Marrero's recantation of his statement and also elicited testimony that Petitioner had left the area to work in Las Vegas:
(Id. at 111:4-17.)
The prosecutor followed up on re-direct, also questioning Marrero about Las Vegas and about whether Petitioner had ever used a different name:
To continue reading
Request your trial