Norton v. Spencer, CIV.A. 01-30070-MAP.

• Decision Date: 16 April 2003
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. 01-30070-MAP.,CIV.A. 01-30070-MAP.
• Citation: 256 F.Supp.2d 120
• Parties: Roger NORTON, Petitioner v. Luis S. SPENCER, Respondent
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

256 F.Supp.2d 120

Roger NORTON, Petitioner v. Luis S. SPENCER, Respondent

No. CIV.A. 01-30070-MAP.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

April 16, 2003.

Stewart T. Graham, Jr., Hampden, MA, for Roger Norton.

Roger Norton, Gardner, MA, pro se.

William J. Meade, Dean A Mazzone, Attorney General's Office, Boston, MA, for Luis S. Spencer.

MEMORANDUM REGARDING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Docket Nos. 35, 1)

PONSOR, District Judge.

Petitioner Roger Norton has sought habeas relief from this court, based (among other things) upon the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence at his trial, in violation of his rights as set forth in Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The respondent moved to dismiss the petition pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On March 25, 2003, the court issued its memorandum denying the Motion to Dismiss and indicating that it would allow the petition unless the respondent requested an evidentiary hearing by April 11, 2003. In this memorandum, the court found that AEDPA did not apply, since deference was not due to the state court when the state court did not address the federal issue. Fortini v. Murphy, 257 F.3d 39, 47 (1st Cir.2001). The court also found that the petitioner had made an unrebutted showing of a substantial Brady violation. The unrebutted record established that, at the petitioner's state court trial, the prosecutor had deliberately concealed evidence that was not only highly exculpatory, but actually cast doubt upon the factual guilt of the petitioner.

On April 8, 2003, the respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order Concerning Election of Evidentiary Hearing (Docket No. 35). The respondent's motion provides further evidence in support of the axiom that no good deed goes unpunished.

The purpose of providing an opportunity for the respondent to request an evidentiary hearing was to bend over backwards to be sure that the respondent had every opportunity to defend against the petitioner's request for relief. In composing its memorandum, the court made it absolutely clear that the petitioner had made a showing sufficient, not merely to justify an evidentiary hearing, but sufficient to mandate immediate relief. The petitioner's factual representations were supported by unrebutted affidavits. Significantly, the Commonwealth has never at any point denied the existence of the exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor's knowledge of the exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor's deliberate decision to withhold disclosure of the exculpatory evidence, or the truth of the exculpatory evidence.

In order to be sure that the respondent was not so focused on his legal arguments that he inadvertently overlooked an opportunity to present opposing factual material, the court afforded the respondent an opportunity to put this opposing factual information on the record before allowing the petition. This was, emphatically, not a situation where the court shifted the burden to the respondent. On the contrary, and at the risk of repetition, the court found that the petitioner...