Pruitt v. Brown
| Decision Date | 11 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | 08-CV-01495 (SJF) |
| Parties | ARTHUR PRUITT, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM BROWN, Superintendent of State Prison Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
On March 14, 2001, a judgment of conviction was entered against petitioner, Arthur Pruitt ("petitioner"), in the County Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (DeReggi, J.), upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of rape in the first degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 130.35(1)) and sexual abuse in the first degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 130.65(1)), and imposition of sentence. On June 27, 2008, petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth herein, the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.
L.D., petitioner's stepdaughter, testified that in the evening of May 3, 1999, when she was seventeen (17) years old, she had an argument with petitioner. (Tr. 377). Around eleven o'clock (11:00) that evening, L.D. awoke to find petitioner in her bedroom, at which time they resumedarguing. (Tr. 349-350, 356). When L.D. threatened to call the police if petitioner did not leave her bedroom, petitioner ripped the telephone cord out of the wall and L.D. threw the receiver at him and hit him with the phone. (Id.) They then started "rassling" and petitioner threw L.D. onto the floor, choked her, said that "he could do what he wanted" to her and closed the door. (Tr. 351). Petitioner put his knee on L.D.'s chest and pulled down her underwear as L.D. yelled for him to stop and told him that she had "all types of diseases" and was menstruating. (Tr. 352, 387). According to L.D., she told petitioner "anything [she] could think of, to make him stop." (Tr. 352). Nonetheless, petitioner inserted his penis into L.D.'s vagina and had sexual intercourse with her. (Tr. 353). Afterwards, petitioner wiped himself with a tissue, which he threw in the garbage, and left. (Tr. 354).
Thereafter, L.D. left her home, walked three (3) blocks to the house of her neighbor, Dionne Green ("Green"), and told Green everything that had happened with petitioner. (L.D.: Tr. 357; Green: Tr. 517-519). According to Green, the first thing she did when L.D. arrived at her house was to give her water because her voice was harsh and scratchy. (Tr. 519). When L.D. refused to call the police, Green called her pastor and spoke with the pastor's wife, Rosalind Colander ("Rosalind"). (L.D.: Tr. 358; Green: Tr. 519). L.D. then told Rosalind everything that had happened and asked Rosalind to pick her up from Green's house. (L.D.: Tr. 359; Rosalind: Tr. 520-523). According to Rosalind, when she arrived at Green's home, L.D. was crying. (Tr. 523).
Between one o'clock (1:00) and one thirty (1:30) the next morning, L.D. called her mother, Clarissa Pruitt ("Clarissa"), and told her that petitioner had raped her. (L.D.: Tr. 359; Clarissa: Tr. 611). According to Clarissa, L.D.'s voice was very hoarse. (Tr. 611).
L.D. testified that petitioner's penis was not circumcised, (Tr. 370), which was corroborated by Clarissa, who had been married to petitioner for five (5) years prior to the rape. (Tr.611).
Rosalind took L.D. to Franklin General Hospital ("the hospital"). (L.D.: Tr. 360; Rosalind: Tr. 524). Deborah Scott ("Scott"), a registered nurse at the hospital, (Tr. 504), testified that she observed a "burn abrasion type mark" on L.D.'s upper chest area, by her throat, when she arrived at the hospital. (Tr. 508). Photographs taken of L.D.'s body depicted an abrasion on her upper chest and marks on her neck and arm. (Tr. 364-365).
Doctor Marc Berger ("Berger"), the obstetrician/gynecologist on call at the hospital on May 4, 1999, performed a physical and pelvic examination on L.D. (Berger: Tr. 414-416; L.D.: 360). Berger testified that during his examination, he observed an abrasion and swelling on the left side of L.D.'s neck. (Tr. 424). Blood samples and vaginal/penile DNA were also collected from L.D., (Berger: Tr. 423, 431; Anna Gryl: Tr. 497-498; Detective Anthony Sgueglia: Tr. 621), which Detective Anthony Sgueglia, of the Nassau County Police Department ("NCPD") Sex Crimes Squad, turned into headquarters. (Tr. 622-623).
Police Officer Joseph Sortino ("Sortino") testified that on May 4, 1999, at approximately five o'clock (5:00) in the morning, he responded to a call from headquarters to appear at the hospital. (Tr. 410). According to Sortino, he interviewed L.D. at the hospital and prepared a "32B" domestic incident report of that interview, but that report was subsequently lost. (Tr. 413). Police Officer Beth McKenzie ("McKenzie") also interviewed L.D. and testified that she provided a domestic incident report of that interview to Sortino. (Tr. 410). Sergeant Lucy Guido ("Guido"), with the NCPD Sex Crimes Squad, (Tr. 615), denied every receiving a "32B" form ordomestic incident report. (Tr. 616).
Detective Lloyd Doppman ("Doppman"), of the NCPD's Special Victim's Squad, (Tr. 478), testified that when he arrived at the hospital on May 4, 1999, he observed that L.D. was extremely distraught and had "contusion like marks" on her neck and arm. (Tr. 480). At approximately ten twenty-five (10:25) that morning, Doppman received an evidence collection kit from Carol Lyons, a registered nurse at the hospital, (Doppman: Tr. 482; Lyons: Tr. 550), which he subsequently put into the refrigerator at the NCPD's headquarters. (Doppman: Tr. 482).
Doppman testified that he brought L.D. home, where he observed that the telephone in her bedroom had been pulled from the wall and that the receiver had been disconnected from the set. Doppman did not find the tissue that L.D. claimed petitioner had used to wipe himself after the rape. (Tr. 490).
Detective Kevin McCarthy ("McCarthy") of the NCPD's Scientific Investigation Bureau, (Tr. 447-48), testified that he was responsible for collecting and analyzing blood and bodily fluids collected as evidence. (Tr. 448). On December 14,1999, McCarthy received an evidence collection kit in which the vaginal swabs collected from L.D. tested positive for a prostatic antigen and seminal fluid. (Tr. 452). However, a gray sweat shirt, gray sweat pants and the crotch of L.D.'s underwear tested negative for the prostatic antigen and seminal fluid. (Tr. 474-75.)
On March 15, 2000, McCarthy received the blood specimen collection kit collected from L.D. (Tr. 454). On April 5, 2000, McCarthy sent the DNA samples and petitioner's blood standard card to Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Incorporated ("LabCorp") for DNA analysis. (Tr. 455). Megan Clement ("Clement"), a lab technician at LabCorp trained in DNA analysis, (Tr. 641-642), testified that she received the evidence kit from McCarthy, copied theoriginals, returned the originals to McCarthy and tested the copies with a polymerase chain reaction ("PCR") DNA analysis. (Tr. 648, 652). The sperm fraction of DNA in the copies Clement tested matched the DNA sample from petitioner's blood sample. (Tr. 665). Clement testified that based on the DNA evidence, petitioner's DNA could not be excluded from L.D.'s vaginal swabs. (Tr. 670-71). Clement further testified that "[t]he probability of randomly selecting an unrelated person that has a profile matching the major profile in the sperm fraction is approximately one [1] in six hundred and thirty eight million [638,000,000] for the African American population and one [1] in greater than six billion [> 6,000,000,000] for the Caucasian and the Hispanic populations." (Tr. 672). In addition, Clement testified that PCR analysis, as opposed to the older RFLP technology, was more susceptible to contamination, i.e., the introduction of foreign DNA from human sources that was not present in the original samples. (Tr. 675, 685). However, according to Clement, contamination would only affect a statistical analysis if the technician could not distinguish between the major and minor DNA profiles. (Tr. 682).
Doctor Gerard Catanese ("Catanese"), a medical examiner for Nassau and Suffolk counties, (Tr. 571), testified as an expert in the vaginal area of victims, particularly familiar with the effect of the menstrual cycle on the genitalia. (Tr. 554, 556). Catanese testified that in rape cases, he looks first for trauma in the vaginal area of a female victim, then, absent any trauma, at the age, sexual maturity and level of sexual activity of the victim. (Tr. 557). Catanese never examined L.D., but testified that he had read her medical records which did not indicate any trauma to her vulva or vagina. (Tr. 559-560, 563, 577-578). However, Catanese further testified that since the presence of menstrual fluid may provide more lubrication during sexual intercourse,menstruation might alleviate any possible physical trauma. (Tr. 576). According to Catanese, since each rape involves different circumstances, resisting rape may or may not have resulted in more trauma to L.D.'s body. (Tr. 562). Based upon L.D.'s medical report, Catanese could not ascertain whether or not she had been raped. (Tr. 560, 579).
Catanese further testified that a raspy or sore throat and hoarse voice are evidence consistent with someone having been choked. (Tr. 573).
Petitioner testified that on the night of May 3, 1999, he got into an argument with L.D. because she had "disrespected him" and made him angry; that L.D. stormed to her bedroom following that argument; that he later went to her bedroom to check that she was not sleeping with the lights and television on; that L.D. awoke when he turned the television off and yelled at him to get out of her room; that they then started arguing again; that during the argument in her bedroom, L.D. swung at him and hit him with the phone; that they then "struggle[d]" while he tried to restrain her; that during the struggle on a hardwood floor, L.D., who was just wearing socks, fell to the floor and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial