Quartararo v. Hanslmaier

• Decision Date: 10 February 1999
• Docket Number: Docket No. 98-3745
• Citation: 186 F.3d 91
• Parties: (2nd Cir. 1999) MICHAEL QUARTARARO, Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. ROBERT HANSLMAIER, Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. August Term 1998 Argued:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 91

186 F.3d 91 (2nd Cir. 1999)

MICHAEL QUARTARARO, Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. ROBERT HANSLMAIER, Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

Docket No. 98-3745

August Term 1998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Second Circuit

Argued: February 10, 1999

Decided: July 21, 1999

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granting petitioner habeas corpus relief. Reversed and remanded to the district court for appropriate disposition. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] MARK D. COHEN, Chief Assistant District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (James M. Catterson, Jr., District Attorney of Suffolk County, Steven A. Hovani, Michael J. Miller, Glenn Green, Assistant District Attorneys, of counsel), for Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

HENRIETTE D. HOFFMAN, The Legal Aid Society, Federal Defender Division, New York, New York, for Petitioner-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

Before: VAN GRAAFEILAND, PARKER, Circuit Judges, and MISHLER, District Judge.^*

Judge Mishler concurs in the result.

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:

Robert Hanslmaier, Superintendent of New York State's Woodbourne Correctional Facility, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granting petitioner Michael Quartararo's writ of habeas corpus. The district court granted the writ on the ground that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt petitioner's guilt of murder in the second degree. Quartararo also challenges the district court's finding that the trial testimony of a prosecution witness did not violate Quartararo's constitutional rights under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). Our opinion presumes familiarity with the district court's opinion. Quartararo v. Hanslmaier, 28 F.Supp.2d 749 (E.D.N.Y. 1998); see also People v. Quartararo, 200 A.D.2d 160 (2d Dep't 1994). We review the district court's findings de novo. Maldonado v. Scully, 86 F.3d 32, 35 (2d Cir. 1996).

On April 20, 1979 John Pius, a thirteen-year-old boy, was heinously murdered by being trampled upon and beaten throughout his entire body, by having his mouth and throat plugged with stones and by then being buried and abandoned under leaves and debris, his status as a live boy or corpse being unknown at that time. A Suffolk County Grand Jury indicted four young men, petitioner Michael Quartararo, his brother Peter Quartararo, Robert Brensic and Thomas Ryan, charging them with complicity in the crime of murder in the second degree, Penal Law § 125.25.

The charge against Michael was that he, "acting in concert with and aided by the [other three defendants] with intent to cause the death of John Pius, caused his death by beating, kicking and shoving rocks in his mouth and throat." John Pius, a thirteen-year-old boy, was 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighed 116 pounds. The physician who performed the autopsy on him described his findings as follows.

A John Pius presents multiple contusions and lacerations of the forehead, to the right of the midline. He had marked edema, congestion and hemorrhage of both eyes. He had petechial hemorrhage --

Q Doctor, let me stop you for a moment. I'm going to jump in every so often if I can.

A Yes.

Q You said there was edema to the eyes?

A Yes, sir.

Q What is that?

A This is accumulation of fluid under the skin.

Q And I think you said petechial hemorrhage?

A Petechial hemorrhage.

Q In the eyes.

A Yes.

Q What is that?

A These are pinpoint hemorrhages due to a breaking of small blood vessels.

Q And that's also petechial hemorrhages?

A Yes, petechial hemorrhages

Q Is that also pinpoint hemorrhages?

A Yes.

Q What causes, in particular, petechial or pinpoint hemorrhages?

A In cases of asphyxia they are present.

Q In cases of asphyxia?

A Yes.

Q Were there any other injuries to the eyes?

A No, sir.

Q What else?

A There was a hemorrhage of the nose. There was marked edema and congestion of both lips. There was hemorrhage of the gums. There was a breaking of one tooth. There was a stone rock in the mouth. There was marked edema, congestion and hemorrhage of the right side of the face. There was multiple contusions and lacerations of the neck, anteriorally, laterally, and in back of both ears there was marked contusions and lacerations. There were marked contusions and lacerations of the chest, of the right shoulder anteriorally and on top of the right shoulder, on the right clavicle area. There were also other areas to the right of the umbilicals, on the right costal margin and the waistline, on both thighs, both knees, both ankles and both hands. Also in the back there were numerous superficial lacerations. These in a parallel pattern, parallel to another, and another crossing, that they extended from the mid-part of the back to both buttochs [sic]. And there were three points of pressure on the back. One in each scapula area and one in the lower part of the midline.

Q Okay. If I can just go back for a moment. You said that as far as the abdomen is concerned, what did you find?

A Contusions and lacerations.

Q And you also mentioned the hips?

A And both hips.

Q Also contusions and lacerations?

A Yes, sir.

Q And the hands as well?

A The hands too.

Q And what about the knees?

A In both knees too.

Q Again, abrasions, contusions?

A Contusions, abrasions.

John Pius was not struck by a train or run over by a truck. In view of the above described, personally inflicted injuries, there can be little doubt about the existence of an intent to cause death.

The trial court correctly instructed the jury concerning the prosecution's burden of proving Michael's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court then added the admonition customarily used in New York State where proof consists solely of circumstantial evidence, that the evidence must "exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis, supposition or proposition except that of guilt of the accused." Because the proof of Michael's guilt did not consist solely of circumstantial evidence, application of the rigorous "moral certainty" test appears to have been unnecessary under New York law. See People v. Rumble, 45 N.Y.2d 879, 881 (1978) (mem.), People v. Basir, 179 A.D.2d 662, 663 (1992)(mem.).

The testimony against Michael is quoted at length in the opinion of the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirming his second conviction, See People v. Quartararo supra, at 167-71. Despite the district court's efforts during the three-year period that the habeas corpus motion was before it to find differences in the testimony given at Michael's two trials, we find none of any significance. Moreover, the minuscule differences between the testimony of the witnesses at the two trials were not disclosed to the jury and argued as grounds for acquittal. Had they been disclosed, they might well have impressed the jury with the fact that the testimony had not been rehearsed. See United States v. Ebeling, 146 F.2d 254, 256 (2d Cir. 1944). Instead of following the well-outlined path that a federal habeas corpus court must follow, the district court assumed for itself the position of a thirteenth juror.

Because we do not wish to unduly prolong this opinion, we discuss only a few of the district court's observations that we deem unmeritorious. The only items which the law enforcement representatives found at the scene were a ring, a pair of rusty scissors, a cough drop, cigarette butts and a book of matches. The district court stated that "all of the physical evidence was exculpatory." 28 F. Supp.2d at 769. "Exculpatory" means "clearing or tending to clear from alleged fault or guilt; excusing." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 675 (Rev'd 4th ed. 1968). Where, as here, a murder takes place in an empty field traversed by scores of people before the arrival of police experts, it is not surprising that fingerprints, tufts of hair, etc., were not discovered. Certainly, such physical evidence as was found should not be viewed by a habeas judge as "exculpatory." Moreover, the district court assumed that the jury credited defense witness Debra Dietrich's testimony that she did not see "any soil or dirt" on petitioner's clothes when he returned to the Quartararo home, and that it then drew the inference that no soil or dirt was on the clothes. The jury was under no obligation to credit the testimony or, if it did, to draw this next inference. Nor, if it did reach those conclusions, was the jury required to view this evidence as exculpatory.

The district court attempted to disassociate Michael from Brensic's false statement to the police that the four defendants were at a high school watching a non-existent baseball game when the killing took place. The district court observed that Michael's acknowledgment to the police of his agreement with Brensic's statement "is extraordinarily weak." Id at 771. We disagree. The jury clearly was entitled to infer a consciousness of guilt from Michael's conduct which had independent probative force. See United States v. Anglin, 169 F.3d 154, 160 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Jenkins, 496 F.2d 57, 66 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 925 (1975); Mikus v. United States, 433 F.2d 719, 728 (2d Cir. 1970).

Statements made by petitioner to a group of his friends during a chin session in the summer of 1979 are more direct evidence of his guilt. This testimony is quoted at length in the opinions of both the New York Appellate Division, 200 A.D.2d 160, 167-71, and the district court, 28 F. Supp.2d 749, 757-60. For our purposes, the following excerpt from the testimony of David O'Brien, one of the young men in attendance, will suffice.

He said that they were stealing a minibike. And that this boy John had seen them stealing the minibike. And that they were going to--that he was going to call the police. Then they chased after him and caught up to him. An...