Noble v. Kelly

Decision Date28 February 2000
Docket NumberNo. 97 Civ. 6907(LBS).,97 Civ. 6907(LBS).
Citation89 F.Supp.2d 443
PartiesCasim NOBLE, Petitioner, v. Walter R. KELLY, Superintendent, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Stephen F. Lungen, District Attorney, Sullivan County, Bonnie M. Mitzner, Monticello, NY, for respondentWalter R. Kelly.

OPINION

SAND, District Judge.

Casim Noble, a prisoner in state custody, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus.After a thorough examination of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner's conviction was obtained in violation of his rights to present witnesses in his defense and to the effective assistance of counsel, both of which are guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.The petition is, therefore, granted.

BACKGROUND

On October 26, 1989, at about 8:00 p.m., Dwight Usher, then 17 years old, was shot four times.Although the shooting was not fatal, the victim suffered severe injuries to his chest, groin, thigh, and elbow.After several operations and a week in the hospital, Usher recovered, though two bullets remain lodged in his body.

The shooting occurred outside a bar, called the Around the Corner Bar, in Kiamesha, New York.The Sullivan County Sheriff's Department conducted an investigation, and on January 24, 1990, a Grand Jury in that county returned a five-count indictment charging three individuals with various crimes in connection with the shooting.(See Indictment 38/90.)Those three individuals were the Petitioner, Derrick Pittman, and Rufus Middleton.(Id.)Each defendant was charged with attempted murder, first degree assault, and criminal use (two counts) and possession of a firearm.(Id.)

A jury trial commenced in New York State Supreme Court in Sullivan County(Kane, J.) on March 14, 1991.The trial centered around the conflicting testimony of four individuals who claimed to have been eyewitnesses to the shooting.1Two of those witnesses—Troy Leibert and the victim, Dwight Usher—testified for the prosecution.The other two witnesses— Melvin Walker and Raphalena Andrews— testified for the Petitioner.2Because of its centrality to our resolution of this petition we summarize the eyewitness testimony in some detail.

A.The Eyewitness Testimony
1.Leibert

The first eyewitness to testify was Troy Leibert.Leibert testified that throughout the summer of 1989, he and his cousin, Terence Duncan, had been making regular trips to the Sullivan County area from their homes in New York City.(Seeid. at 115.)Although Leibert denied any use of illegal drugs or involvement in drug trafficking, during cross-examination defense counsel elicited that he had once been convicted for possession of drug paraphernalia.(Seeid. at 186-87.)Leibert testified that on October 26, 1989, he traveled to Sullivan County by bus with Melvin Walker and with Walker's girlfriend, Raphalena Andrews.(Seeid. at 117-18.)Leibert was scheduled to appear in court that day in Sullivan County in connection with a trespassing charge.(Seeid.)When his court appearance was completed, Leibert, along with Walker and Andrews, took a taxicab to the Around the Corner Bar to meet up with Duncan, who they believed was inside.(Seeid. at 120.)

Leibert testified that upon their arrival at the bar, while standing about 30 to 35 feet away (seeid. at 133), he saw Duncan's car parked outside and noticed that Dwight Usher was seated in the front passenger seat (seeid. at 123-24).Leibert then saw "three guys come down" a nearby hill and approach the car.(Id. at 124-26.)One of them (later identified as Pittman (seeid. at 135))3 knocked on the window, prompting Usher to roll it down.(Seeid. at 126.)Words were exchanged and Usher eventually got out of the car.(Seeid. at 127.)While the argument continued, one of the three (later identified as Noble (seeid. at 137))"pulled out a gun and ... shot" Usher, (id.), after which all three ran back up the hill (seeid. at 145).Leibert, Walker, and Andrews then ran into the bar and told the bartender to call an ambulance.(Seeid. at 148.)Without waiting for the ambulance to arrive, however, Leibert, Walker, and Duncan put Usher in the car and drove him to the Sheriff's Department headquarters.(Seeid. at 150-51.)

2.Usher

The second eyewitness to testify was the victim, Dwight Usher.Usher, who also resided in New York City, testified that he began making trips up to Sullivan County in September, 1989 to sell crack cocaine.(Seeid. at 221-24.)His territory was the Around the Corner Bar.(Seeid.)Usher explained that initially he worked selling crack for a friend, John Clairborn, but that, at some point, he met Terence Duncan.(Seeid. at 229-30.)Because Duncan offered him more money than Clairborn had been paying, Usher switched allegiances and began to sell crack for Duncan.(Id.)

Usher testified that on October 26, 1989, at around 7:45 p.m., he saw "a Black male standing on the hill next to the Around the Corner bar...."(Id. at 237.)Although he had seen that person a few times and knew that his name was Rufus,4he had never met him.(Seeid. at 237-38.)Usher explained that because he had never met Rufus, he"confronted him and asked him why was he up here...."(Id. at 237, 240-42.)Rufus responded that it was none of Usher's business and told him "to get out of his face."(Id. at 240.)Usher then went back to the bar, asked Duncan for the keys to his car, and waited in the front passenger seat of the car listening to music on the radio.(Seeid. at 242-43, 245.)About two or three minutes later, he saw three males coming down the hill approaching the car (Seeid. at 244.)One of the three, later identified as the defendantDerrick Pittman(seeid. at 246), asked him to get out of the car (seeid. at 245).According to Usher, Pittman asked him why he had confronted Middleton (seeid. at 247), then backed up (seeid. at 249)."And," Usher concluded, "that's when ... [Noble] pulled out the gun and shot me."(Id.)As Usher fell to the ground, he saw his three assailants run up the hill.(Seeid. at 251.)

Usher also testified that he recalled Leibert, Duncan, and Walker putting him in the car and driving him to the sheriff's office.(Seeid. at 253.)He recalled a conversation with a "female sheriff" who asked him who had shot him.He remembered that he told her that "Casim and Rufus" had shot him.(Id. at 253-54.)The sheriff, Corporal Marilyn Cook, testified at the trial and corroborated Usher's account.(Seeid. at 369, 380.)

3.Walker

Melvin Walker, the third eyewitness, was called by the Petitioner.At the time of the trial, Walker was incarcerated on narcotics charges and pursuant to a conviction for attempted rape.On October 26, 1989, however, Walker resided in New York City.That day, he testified, he traveled to Sullivan County by car with Troy Leibert because Troy was scheduled to appear in court.(Seeid. at 600.)Walker testified that he had been inside the Around the Corner Bar that evening prior to the shooting.At one point, he went outside.(Id. at 607.)According to Walker, when he left the bar, Leibert, Andrews, Duncan, Noble and Pittman were all inside.(Seeid. at 609, 692.)5

Walker testified that, upon exiting the bar, he went across the street to a hotel to make a phone call.(Seeid.)On his way back to the bar a few minutes later, while standing only six or seven feet from Duncan's car, he saw Usher sitting in the car and saw "three people" talking to him.(Id.)Usher got out of the car and one of the three men shot him.(Seeid.)Walker testified that because it was dark (id. at 612) and because Usher's assailants had hoods pulled over their faces (seeid. at 681), he could not identify them (id. at 608-09).However, Walker also testified that he knew Pittman (seeid. at 646) and Middleton (seeid. at 647) from New York, and recognized Noble from Sullivan County, and he was certain that those three individuals had not been involved.(Seeid. at 695-96.)Finally, Walker testified that he went to the sheriff's department with Usher, and later visited him at the hospital.At one point, while they were in the hospital, Walker testified that Usher asked him "who did it, who did it," and Walker responded that he didn't know.(Seeid. at 615.)

4.Andrews

The final eyewitness to testify was Walker's former fiancee, Raphalena Andrews.Andrews had not been identified as a witness in advance of trial.The District Attorney told the court that he had tried unsuccessfully to locate Andrews.(Seeid. at 439.)When Andrews testified, she explained that she was appearing in response to a telephone call she had received during the trial from the Petitioner's mother, who asked her to testify.(Seeid. at 762.)

Andrews claimed that, on the night in question, she was standing with Leibert, having just gotten out of a taxicab, when the shooting occurred.(Seeid. at 758.)Like Walker, Andrews testified that she could not see the shooter (seeid. at 760) because it was dark (seeid. at 769) and because he and his two companions were wearing hoods that covered their faces (seeid. at 768).Moreover, Andrews testified, like Walker, that on the day of the shooting she was familiar enough with Middleton and Noble that she could recognize them and was certain that neither of them had been involved with the shooting.(Seeid. at 765.)

B.The Alibi and Mistaken Identity Defenses

At trial, Noble and his co-defendants attempted to discredit Leibert's and Usher's testimony.Defense counsel suggested, on cross-examination, that Leibert's account was untrustworthy because of the distance he stood from the shooting (30-35 feet), the lack of lighting (seeid. at 202), and the fact that the car would seem to have blocked his view of the action (seeid. at 202-04).Usher's credibility was attacked by the fact that...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
16 cases
  • Zimmerman v. Burge
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • June 25, 2007
    ...habeas relief for the exclusion of defense witnesses, a petitioner must establish that an error was not harmless. See Noble v. Kelly, 89 F.Supp.2d 443, 458 (S.D.N.Y.2000), aff'd, 246 F.3d 93, 98 (20. Cir.2001). Satisfying this standard requires a petitioner to show that the error "`had subs......
  • Schulz v. Marshall
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 19, 2007
    ...the production of this key witness was performance that fell[ ] below a reasonable professional standard."); see also Noble v. Kelly, 89 F.Supp.2d 443, 463 (S.D.N.Y.2000) ("Errors caused by counsel's ignorance of the law are errors that run afoul of the objective standard of reasonableness.......
  • Pulinario v. Goord
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • October 30, 2003
    ...65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945) (an act is done willfully if it is done "with a bad purpose" or "evil motive"); Noble v. Kelly, 89 F.Supp.2d 443, 457 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (defendant did not act "willfully" because his failure to comply with notice of alibi statute was not tactical, in bad fai......
  • Durant v. Strack
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • June 19, 2001
    ...is directed either to release petitioner from custody or to retry him within 90 days of this order. See, e.g., Noble v. Kelly, 89 F.Supp.2d 443, 464 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (granting writ and ordering release or retrial within 90 days), aff'd, 246 F.3d 93 (2d SO ORDERED. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MA......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT