Plummer v. Haggett, 11-CV-1707 (JFB)
| Decision Date | 24 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | 11-CV-1707 (JFB) |
| Parties | ROBERT PLUMMER, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM T. HAGGETT, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Robert Plummer ("petitioner") petitions this Court pro se for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction entered on September 10, 2008, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (the "trial court") for course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree. See N.Y. Penal Law § 130.80(1)(a). Petitioner was sentenced to a determinate term of seven years' imprisonment and three years' post-release supervision.
In the instant petition, petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the trial court deprived him of a fair trial and due process of law by precluding him from introducing the third of a series of out-of-court statements for the purpose of demonstrating that the first two statements, which were admitted at trial, were given involuntarily. Petitioner argues that the trial court's preclusion of this evidence deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense to the crime charged.1 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court concludes that there is no basis for habeas relief, and denies the petition in its entirety.
The Court has adduced the following facts from the instant petition and the underlying record.
Petitioner was indicted for, and later convicted of, one count of course of sexualconduct against a child in the second degree. See N.Y. Penal Law § 130.80(1)(a). Petitioner's conviction arose out of events that took place between 1999 and 2003, during which petitioner sexually abused his niece, R.H.2, fifteen to twenty times when she was between the ages of six and ten years old. Petitioner's conduct did not come to light until 2006, when R.H.'s mother discovered an old entry in R.H.'s diary, indicating she had been abused by petitioner.
On February 8, 2007, petitioner was arrested and taken to the Nassau County Police Headquarters in Mineola. (Tr.3 at 953, 956-58.) Following his arrest, petitioner voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and gave three successive written statements to the interrogating officers.4 The first statement ("statement one") was a confession to sexually abusing the victim fifteen to twenty times:
Between the years 2000 and 2003 . . . I want to admit that, over the years when [R.H.] was between the ages of 6 through 10, I did sexually abuse her. I admit I did it. There were about 15 to 20 times that I touched her and rubbed myself on her. I didn't penetrate her vagina with my fingers, but I did rub her vagina area. There was one time when I put my mouth on her vagina and kissed her vagina. I am very sorry for what I did. . . . I am now at Special Victims Squad giving the statement to Detective Moran freely and voluntarily. I did read it. It is my words and it is the truth.
(Resp. Ex. 17.)
The second statement ("statement two") was a handwritten letter of apology to the victim, in which petitioner apologized to the victim for his conduct:
Dear [R.H.], I am writing this letter to you to try and explain what I had done to you. I know there really is no way for me to make this up to you but I'll try. Please try to forgive me because I'm really sorry. I know that it's no excuse, but when I did those things to you, I was on drugs, and for some reason I was unable to control myself. Again, I know that this is no real reason or excuse for what I did. But again, I'm sorry. You know that I love you and would never do anything to hurt you. I hope that one day you will be able to forgive me. If not, I'll understand. Always, Robert.
(Resp. Ex. 17.)
The third statement ("statement three") was a confession to sexually abusing another individual, the victim's cousin. Petitioner was not charged with sexually abusing the victim's cousin, and his confessed abuse was not at issue during petitioner's trial. At no point during the trial was the jury made aware of the existence of statement three. However, at the trial, statements one and two were admitted into evidence.5
On January 3, 2008, the Honorable Joseph C. Calabrese held a Huntley hearing to determine whether the three written statements made by petitioner at the Nassau County Police Headquarters were voluntarily and intelligently made. (PTR.6 at 3.)
At the hearing, Detectives Edmond Moran and James Crawford testified as to the events surrounding petitioner's arrest and interrogation. (Id. at 10-37, 83-90.) At issue was petitioner's state of mind during the time he was in police custody and whether any promises were made to petitioner in return for a confession. The officers were also questioned about whether petitioner was informed of his Miranda rights and, if so, whether he was informed before or after any statements were made. The officers testified that no threats or promises were made to induce petitioner to confess. (Id. at 30, 89.) Moran testified that petitioner was advised of his Miranda rights, and that petitioner knowingly waived his rights before offering his first statement. (Id. at 21-22.) Moran further testified that petitioner's second and third statements contained Miranda warnings, and that petitioner read the statements before signing them. (Id. at 30, 32.)
By Decision and Order dated January 17, 2008 and entered on January 23, 2008, the trial court held that all three statements made by petitioner were voluntarily and intelligently made.
On February 8, 2007, petitioner was indicted on one count of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 130.80(1)(a). (Nassau County Indictment Number 2180N-07.)
The following details of petitioner's trial are relevant to the instant petition. Prior to trial, counsel for petitioner informed the court that he intended to introduce statement three into evidence. (Tr. at 6.) Counsel explained that petitioner had learned that the victim's cousin had denied ever being sexually abused by petitioner. (Id. at 10-12.) According to petitioner, this would demonstrate that petitioner "would have signed anything that night," and that his will was overborne at the time he signed statements one and two, in which he confessed to sexually abusing the victim. (Id. at 10, 13-14.) However, counsel stated that petitioner was not going to bring in the victim's cousin to testify that the sexual abuse did not happen. (Id. at 17.) The trial court refused to allow statement three into evidence, finding that it was irrelevant and self-serving hearsay. (Id. at 9-16.) Petitioner maintained his objection to the court's ruling and preserved the matter for review on appeal.
At trial, petitioner maintained his innocence of the crime charged and sought to establish that his confessions were involuntarily obtained and, thus, unreliable.
On direct examination, petitioner testified to the following. After arriving at the police station, two plainclothes officers took petitioner to a room, which contained a desk and three chairs. (Id. at 958.) The officers placed petitioner in a chair and stood there for approximately ten minutes. (Id.) At this point, Moran and DetectiveEdwin Trujillo entered the room, removed petitioner's existing handcuffs, and, using their own handcuffs, handcuffed petitioner to the chair. (Id.) Trujillo then began to interrogate petitioner. (Id.) Petitioner responded, "Absolutely not." (Id. at 959.) Although petitioner did not have access to a clock, he believed the interrogation lasted "a couple of hours."7 (Id.)
Counsel then showed petitioner statement one and the accompanying Miranda rights card. Petitioner testified that he signed the rights card, and that he signed it after he signed the written statement. (Id. at 959-61.) When asked why he signed the statement, petitioner testified that at first he refused to confess to the crime. (Id. at 962.) Once the detectives told him that the only alternative was "to sit in jail until this thing comes to trial," petitioner came to think that confessing was his best option in the hope that the detectives would fulfill their promise and he would get released from jail and not lose his job. (Id.)
Petitioner then explained in detail to the jury the process of how his first statement was produced. The detectives questioned petitioner and Moran typed petitioner's answers into a computer as he spoke. At some point, the detectives stopped and said, "If you are going to give a confession, it has to be specific." (Id. at 964.) Petitioner then told the detectives, (Id.) Petitioner then told them that he did this "fifteen to twenty times." (Id.) While Moran was typing out the confession, Trujillo said, "Okay, listen if you really want to get sympathy from the judge . . . you need to write an apology letter to [R.H.]." (Id. at 965. ) Petitioner did not want to write the apology letter; he agreed to write it after Trujillo said, "If you want to get sympathy from the judge, you have to show that you are remorseful." (Id. at 965-66.) Petitioner wrote the apology letter by hand. (Id. at 966. ) He stated that he tried to make the letter vague, but also tried to satisfy the detectives. (Id.)
Counsel then asked petitioner why he signed the statement and wrote the apology letter. Petitioner, again, explained that he confessed because he "believed the detectives when they stated to me that they would speak on my behalf and try to...
To continue reading
Request your trial