Manisy v. Maloney

• Decision Date: 04 September 2003
• Docket Number: No. 01-11849-RGS.,01-11849-RGS.
• Citation: Manisy v. Maloney, 283 F.Supp.2d 307 (D. Mass. 2003)
• Parties: Sinethone MANISY v. Michael T. MALONEY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

283 F.Supp.2d 307

Sinethone MANISY v.Michael T. MALONEY.

No. 01-11849-RGS.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

September 4, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Sinethone Manisy, Pro Se.

Annette C. Benedetto, Department of Attorney General, Boston, MA, for Michael T. Maloney.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITIONER'S RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

STEARNS, District Judge.

On December 7, 1995, petitionerSinethone Manisy was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court jury of being an accessory before and after the fact of an armed robbery.On November 7, 2001, Manisy filed a timely petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.¹As grounds for his petition, Manisy asserted: (1) that juror misconduct denied him the right to a fair and impartial verdict; (2) that his conviction was obtained "by the use of improper non-probative prejudicial evidence of prior bad acts and bad character;" and (3) that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel because of his lawyer's mishandling of various evidentiary issues.The respondent, in due course, moved to dismiss the petition in its entirety, and the proceeding was referred to Magistrate Judge Dein.In her Report, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion to dismiss be allowed as to the second and third claims, but denied as to the claim of juror misconduct.²While I agree with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the second and third claims be dismissed, I am of the view that the juror misconduct claim is barred by a procedural default and must therefore be dismissed as well.

BACKGROUND

Manisy was indicted by a state grand jury as a principal in a December 29, 1994 armed robbery, and as an accessory before and after the fact of the same crime.In November of 1995, the case proceeded to trial before a petit jury.At the close of the evidence, the court granted Manisy's motion for a required finding of not guilty on the armed robbery charge.On December 7, 1995, the jury returned guilty verdicts on the accessory counts.

At trial, Gregory Dame was a principal witness for the Commonwealth.Dame testified that he owed money to Manisy for cocaine and had agreed to participate in the robbery as a means of repaying the debt.According to Dame, Manisy planned the robbery, supplied the guns, and received the proceeds.Another Commonwealth witness, Rotha Chhay, corroborated Manisy's involvement in the robbery and testified that Manisy had used the proceeds to buy cocaine which he then directed his confederates to sell.

On the second day of jury deliberations, the jury sent the court a note stating that "We feel that we are a hung jury."The court gave further instructions and asked the jury to resume deliberations.On the third and final day of deliberations, the jury sent the court the following note.

The juror in seat twelve mentioned yesterday in deliberations that her son had a confrontation with Gregory Dame at some point in the past.She was not aware of this when she was impaneled.Does this disqualify her?

The court found that there was "extraneous matter coming into the jury room that one of the jurors had a relative who had a confrontation with Mr. Dame which [sic] is the central Commonwealth witness."After conferring with counsel, the court summoned the jurors and read back the question.The judge then instructed as follows:

My response to this is not the answer to that question, and except to tell you as strongly as I can, your deliberations in this case must be based upon the evidence you heard in this trial, in the courtroom and upon no other basis.You are limited to the evidence in the case which is the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits in the case, and you must confine your deliberations to those two areas.Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.Please resume your deliberations.

Neither counsel objected.Approximately six hours later, the jury found Manisy guilty of the accessory charges.A state prison sentence ensued.

In Manisy's direct appeal, new counsel argued that the trial judge had erred in not undertaking to make further inquiry of the jurors in response to their question.Addressing this issue, the Appeals Court held that

[t]he trial judge's decision, in response to the jury's inquiry, not to make further inquiry and, instead, to emphatically instruct the jurors to decide the matter based only on the evidence in the case did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.Here, the information did not "concern[ ] one of the parties or the matter in the litigation,"Commonwealth v. Fidler,377 Mass. 192, 200, 385 N.E.2d 513(1979), and the judge was not required to conduct a hearing.Id. at 203, 385 N.E.2d 513.See alsoCommonwealth v. Gilchrist,413 Mass. 216, 219, 597 N.E.2d 32(1992).In the present case, the judge acted well within his discretion in refusing to make further inquiry.SeeCommonwealth v. Dixon,395 Mass. 149, 151-52, 479 N.E.2d 159(1985).

The Procedural Default Rule

A federal court will not undertake habeas corpus review of a state court decision that rests on an independent and adequate state ground.Phoenix v. Matesanz,189 F.3d 20, 24(1st Cir.1999).Failure to comply with a state procedural requirement is such a ground.SeeWainwright v. Sykes,433 U.S. 72, 82, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594(1977)(the "failure to timely object at trial to an alleged error as required by a state contemporaneous objection rule constitutes an `independent and adequate state ground' sufficient to foreclose federal habeas corpus review of the alleged error.").A procedurally defaulted claim may, however, be resurrected if the last state court granting review addresses a federal claim on its merits, thereby waiving the default.Ylst v. Nunnemaker,501 U.S. 797, 801, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706(1991).

To this point, the Magistrate Judge's Report accurately tracks the case law.

"A finding by a state court that a defendant procedurally defaulted a claim bars federal habeas corpus relief on that claim unless the defendant as a petitioner shows either cause for the default and prejudice from the claimed violation of federal law, or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result if the claim is not considered."Gunter v. Maloney,291 F.3d 74, 78(1st Cir.2002)(citingColeman v. Thompson,501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640(1991)).The doctrine of procedural default arises out of "the long-standing rule that federal courts do not review state court decisions which rest on `independent and adequate state grounds.'Such independent and adequate state grounds exist where `the state court declined to hear the federal claims because the prisoner failed to meet a state procedural requirement.'In such a case, `considerations of comity and federalism bar the federal court's review.'"Simpson v. Matesanz,175 F.3d 200, 205-06(1st Cir.1999)(internal citations and punctuation omitted), cert. denied,528 U.S. 1082, 120 S.Ct. 803, 145 L.Ed.2d 677(2000).

Report,at 10-11.

The Magistrate Judge also recognized that "[i]n Massachusetts, the rule that `a claim not raised is waived' is regularly enforced and `firmly established,'" and "[t]he fact that following a failure to object, [a]state appellate court goes on to review a case under a miscarriage of justice standard does not waive the need for a contemporaneous objection, and does not `create independent rights in habeas petitioners.'"Id. at 11, quotingGunter,291 F.3d at 79-80.The Magistrate Judge, however, determined that the procedural default rule did not preclude federal review of Manisy's juror misconduct claim.In so concluding, the Magistrate Judge reasoned that because the Appeals Court had failed to specifically mention Manisy's failure to object to the trial court's decision not to pursue a further inquiry of the jurors, it had waived the default."Rather, the court addressed the merits of Manisy's claim, and concluded that the trial judge had acted within his discretion."Reportat 12.Finally, the Magistrate Judge determined that "[t]he Appeals Court did not analyze the case under a miscarriage of justice standard."Id.(emphasis added).It is not clear what the Magistrate Judge meant by this last statement, as the Appeals Court clearly indicated that it had considered whether the judge's handling of the alleged juror misconduct issue had posed a potential risk of a miscarriage of justice.It is likely that the "not" is a transcription error and that the Magistrate Judge meant to cite the Appeals Court's reference to the miscarriage of justice standard as further evidence of a waiver.³But,

[a]s the First Circuit has repeatedly held, the mere fact that a state appellate court engages in a discretionary, and necessarily cursory, review under a "miscarriage of justice" analysis does not in itself indicate that the court has determined to waive an independent state procedural ground for affirming the conviction.Tart v. Massachusetts,949 F.2d 490, 496-497(1st Cir.1991).SeePuleio [v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1200(1st Cir.1987)];McCown v. Callahan,726 F.2d 1, 3(1st Cir.1984);Gibson v. Butterworth,693 F.2d 16, 17-18(1st Cir.1982).

Respondent's Objection, at 9.

Even assuming that the Appeals Court had intended (deliberately or not) to waive the default, the waiver would only be effective if its decision "`fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion.'"Coleman,501 U.S. 722, 735, 111 S.Ct. 2546(1990), quotingMichigan v. Long,463 U.S. 1032, 1040-1041, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201(1983).See alsoBurks v. Dubois,55 F.3d 712, 716 n. 2(1st Cir.1995).That is not the case here.In concluding that the judge's actions had posed no substantial risk...