Lessieur v. Ryan

• Decision Date: 19 May 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 16-cv-10831-ADB
• Parties: SHAWN LESSIEUR, Petitioner, v. KELLY RYAN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

SHAWN LESSIEUR, Petitioner, v. KELLY RYAN, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 16-cv-10831-ADB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

May 19, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BURROUGHS, D.J.

On May 3, 2016, Petitioner Shawn Lessieur ("Petitioner") filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2009 conviction in Middlesex Superior Court for first degree murder and the unlawful possession of a firearm. [ECF No. 1]. After reviewing the parties' submissions, and construing Petitioner's pleadings liberally because he is proceeding pro se, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, [ECF No. 1], is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") provided an account of the facts as the jury could have found them, which is summarized in relevant part below. See Commonwealth v. Lessieur, 34 N.E.3d 321, 324-27 (Mass. 2015).¹

[Petitioner] and [Nolyn] Surprenant first met in 1989, when [Petitioner] moved into the foster home where Surprenant, then fourteen years of age, lived.

The two became very close and Surprenant began selling drugs for [Petitioner] two or three years later. Surprenant dropped out of high school and moved out of the foster home and into the apartment that [Petitioner] shared with his girl friend, Stacy Cruz . . .

[Petitioner] and Surprenant both knew [Mark Jones,] the victim, although the victim was part of a different social group. The victim had a reputation for violence and threatened to rob [Petitioner] about two weeks before the murder. The victim was murdered on March 17, 1994.

Mark Beaulieu, then a resident of the University Heights apartment complex off Skyline Drive in Lowell, witnessed some of the events that occurred at the scene that evening. . . . He was outside of his apartment with his wife at about 6:55 P.M., clearing snow off their vehicle. He noticed a vehicle parked with the engine running near the dumpster area of the complex and someone in the driver's seat. He heard two gunshots fired a few seconds apart, . . . and then saw someone come out from the side of the building near the dumpster and get into the passenger seat of the vehicle. He approximated that, based on the roof line of the vehicle, the passenger was "no taller than six feet" and had shorter hair, but was not able to describe any other details of the driver or passenger. The vehicle then turned to leave the apartment complex.

Beaulieu and his wife got into their vehicle and followed the departing vehicle. He could not get a clear view of the license plate, but described the vehicle as "Toyotaish, . . . Japanese make older boxy." Beaulieu eventually turned around and returned to the apartment to call the police.

The victim was found in the early morning hours of March 18, 1994, lying face up in the dumpster area of University Heights. He was fully clothed, except that his penis was outside of his pants. . . . The victim had been shot once on the left cheek and once on the back left side of his head near his neck. Either shot would have killed him, and he likely died in seconds.

Police officers interviewed fifty to one hundred people during their investigation, but did not establish any concrete leads. They did not talk to Surprenant during their initial investigation.

Twelve years after the murder, in April, 2006, two police officers went to the house that Surprenant shared with his pregnant wife to talk to him. The police officers asked Surprenant if he would come with them to talk, which he understood to be in regard to the death of the victim. Surprenant asked if he would be coming home that night, and the officers said that he would. The officers drove him to Skyline Drive, where he described the victim's murder to them. Surprenant told the officers that on the evening of the murder, [Petitioner] called Surprenant at the apartment they shared at about 6 P.M. and asked him to retrieve a gun from a reclining chair in [Petitioner]'s bedroom. [Petitioner] explained that the victim was with him at the Chelmsford Street Projects. Surprenant eventually found the gun and took it to [an acquaintance's] house. He drove [Petitioner]'s blue Toyota Corolla automobile.

[Petitioner] met Surprenant outside [the acquaintance's] house. [Petitioner] explained to Surprenant that he and the victim would get into the vehicle with Surprenant and expounded, "I told [the victim] I was going to take him to mydealers." The victim sat in the back seat of the vehicle and [Petitioner] sat in the passenger seat. The victim thought they were going to [Petitioner]'s drug dealer to rob him. Petitioner asked Surprenant to stop at a convenience store. During this stop, Surprenant gave [Petitioner] the gun while the victim was not looking.

The three got back into the same seats in the vehicle and, following [Petitioner]'s directions, Surprenant drove to University Heights. [Petitioner] asked Surprenant to park next to the dumpster and got out of the vehicle, stating that he was going to "take a piss." The victim said he would go with [Petitioner]. Surprenant stayed in the driver's seat and turned the vehicle's lights off; he left the engine running.

[Petitioner] and the victim walked toward the side of the building. About three to four minutes later, Surprenant heard two gunshots fired about three to five seconds apart. About thirty seconds later, [Petitioner] came back to the car alone and Surprenant drove out of the apartment complex. [Petitioner] said that he "shot [the victim] while we was taking a piss while he had his dick in his hand." [Petitioner] said he shot the victim in the head and the face, but that he wanted to go back and make sure the victim was dead. The two drove to their former foster home, where they stayed for approximately five minutes before Surprenant recommended that they go to the Tyngsboro bridge and dispose of the gun. Surprenant parked near the bridge and [Petitioner] walked up and threw the gun off the side. Surprenant drove back to their apartment.

Surprenant continued to sell drugs for [Petitioner] until August, 1994, when Surprenant was arrested for selling cocaine. Although he and [Petitioner] remained friends, the two never discussed the murder except for the first couple of weeks following the murder, when [Petitioner] told Surprenant that he told a couple of people that he killed the victim. Surprenant told his former girl friend, Kristin Tatro, about the murder in 1996 or 1997, and told his brother, Jason, and a foster brother about the murder in 1999. Jason told Surprenant never to tell anyone else about what had happened or else he would be "locked up for the case."

In addition to the statement Surprenant made in the police cruiser, he made a video recorded statement that night at the Lowell police station. He also led the police to the Tyngsboro bridge, where the two had disposed of the gun, and the police then took him home. The following month, a warrant issued for Surprenant's arrest, and Surprenant turned himself in. Surprenant's attorney negotiated a deal whereby Surprenant would testify against [Petitioner] in exchange for five years in State prison on a manslaughter charge. Surprenant remained in custody from May, 2006, through [Petitioner's] trial.

The defense vigorously cross-examined Surprenant regarding recent contrivance, motive to lie, and bias, highlighting the terms of the deal that Surprenant made with the prosecution and suggesting that he contrived the testimony in an attempt to keep himself out of trouble. Defense counsel also impeached Surprenant with inconsistencies in his testimony at trial, his testimony before the grand jury, his video recorded statement, and the police report written after Surprenant's statements on Skyline Drive and at the police station; a possible third-party culprit, "Minolo"; and memory issues, questioning Surprenant about his drug use at the time of the murder and a prior head injury. In response toimpeachment for recent contrivance, the Commonwealth presented Surprenant's prior consistent statements through the testimony of Tatro, Jason, and Sergeant Joseph Murray, a police officer who conducted the April, 2006, interviews.

Tatro testified that she met Surprenant in 1993, had two children with him in 1995 and 1997, and that their relationship ended in 1998 or 1999. She said that Surprenant told her about the murder sometime during their relationship. He told her that he and [Petitioner] picked up the victim because the victim had been talking about robbing [Petitioner], and that [Petitioner] shot the victim. Tatro testified that police had asked her about the murder in 2005, but that she lied and told the police that she had no information because she was afraid and loyal to Surprenant.

Jason testified that Surprenant told him about the murder during the summer of 1999. Jason was out on parole during that period, having been incarcerated in 1994. Surprenant told Jason that he was in the vehicle when [Petitioner] shot the victim in the back of the ear and in the head. Surprenant also told Jason that he had an affair with Cruz in 1999, when she and [Petitioner] were still in a relationship.

Sergeant Murray recounted Surprenant's prior statements during the interview on Skyline Drive and then at the police station. He noted that there were no promises made to Surprenant before Surprenant started giving information about the crime. Sergeant Murray said that police officers only told Surprenant that he would be going home that night after Surprenant agreed to get into the cruiser with them. After Surprenant recounted the murder, he asked again if he was going home that night and the officers said that they would have to make a few telephone calls at the police station, but he was allowed to return home.

The defense strategy was to show that Surprenant himself was the shooter or that he participated in the crime with a third party. [Petitioner] called two witnesses,

...