Tassin v. Cain

• Decision Date: 23 March 2007
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 05-0143.
• Parties: Robert TASSIN, Jr. v. Burl CAIN, Warden.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

482 F.Supp.2d 764

Robert TASSIN, Jr. v. Burl CAIN, Warden.

Civil Action No. 05-0143.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

March 23, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Denise M. Leboeuf, Attorney at Law, Carol Anne Kolinchak, Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Robert Tassin, Jr.

Terry Michael Boudreaux, District Attorney's Office, Parish of Jefferson, Gretna, LA, for Burl Cain, Warden.

ORDER AND REASONS

BARBIER, District Judge.

The petitioner, Robert Tassin, Jr., filed this action under 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging a May 8, 1987 conviction for first degree murder and subsequent sentence of death. Because the Court has found the record to be sufficient, no evidentiary hearing is required. After an exhaustive examination of the record and the law, the Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to relief.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Robert Tassin, Jr. ("Petitioner") is a death row inmate currently being held at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder on May 8, 1987 in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish and sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.¹ Petitioner then filed an application for post-conviction relief in State court. The State district court granted Petitioner an evidentiary hearing. On August 5, 1994, the State court denied Petitioner's claims. Application for writ of review to the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied without reasons on December 8, 1995. A motion for reconsideration to the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied on January 26, 1995.

Petitioner filed his first federal Petition for Habeas Corpus on April 23, 1996, which was subsequently denied without prejudice to allow Petitioner to exhaust a newly discovered claim in State court. On January 6, 1997, Petitioner filed a successor state post-conviction petition on the new claim. Following a November 19, 1998 hearing, the State court denied Petitioner's successor state post-conviction claim. Petitioner's application for writ of review to the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied without opinion on October 1, 2004. Currently before the Court is Petitioner's second federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was indicted by a Jefferson Parish Grand Jury under La.Rev.Stat. 14:30 for the first degree murder of tugboat captain Edward Martin. On the night of November 6, 1986, Martin and his deckhand, Wayne Stagner, met 19-year-old Shelia Mills at the Shady Lady Lounge in Marrero, Louisiana. Around midnight, after hours of drinking alcohol, the three drove together to a small bar to locate a drug source from whom they could buy cocaine. Failing to locate the source, Mills suggested that they visit the residence of her neighbors, Petitioner and his wife Georgina Tassin. Martin and Stagner waited in the car while Mills entered the Tassin residence to attempt to buy cocaine. Petitioner informed Mills that he had no cocaine but would sell his Dilaudid if she could obtain enough money from Martin and Stagner to supply the entire group with Dilaudid. Mills returned to the car where Martin agreed to provide Mills with fifty-five dollars in exchange for sexual intercourse. Mills reentered the house where she and the Tassins injected Dilaudid.

There was differing testimony at trial as to the discussion that took place between Mills and the Tassins while inside the house. Georgina Tassin testified that at that time a plan was devised to rob Martin and Stagner.² Petitioner testified that the three merely discussed the drug transaction.³

Upon leaving the Tassins' house, Mills and the Tassins joined Martin and Stagner saying that they would all visit a drug source and then return to the Tassins' home. The State maintained that the purpose of the trip was for Petitioner to obtain a gun with which to rob Martin and Stagner.⁴ Petitioner maintained it was to acquire syringes and drugs.⁵

On the return trip, Mills requested that Martin stop the car beneath the Lapalco Bridge in Harvey, Louisiana so that she could exit the car to vomit. After Mills exited the car, Martin and Stagner remained in the front seat, and Petitioner and Georgina Tassin remained in the back seat. According to the State's witnesses, Petitioner, without warning, drew a gun and began firing, killing Martin and wounding Stagner.⁶ According to the defense, Stagner attempted to rob Petitioner at gunpoint, Petitioner lunged for the gun and forced it away, and, when Stagner instructed Martin to get another gun, Petitioner shot wildly at the two men.⁷

Petitioner Robert Tassin, his wife Georgina Tassin, and Shelia Mills were charged with capital murder. During Petitioner's trial Georgina Tassin waived her marital privilege and testified against her husband. In return and pursuant to her plea agreement, Georgina Tassin's charge was reduced from first degree murder to armed robbery. Armed robbery was punishable by up to 99 years,⁸ while first degree murder was punishable by life in prison or death.⁹

Before trial, Petitioner specifically asked for disclosure of information in the State's possession concerning "[t]he existence and substance, and the manner of execution o[r] fulfillment, o[f] any promises, agreements, understandings, or arrangements, either oral or written, between the Government and any prosecution witness ... or her attorneys ... to recommend leniency in sentencing for any crime or crimes for which he or she is convicted."¹⁰ The State responded that there were none.¹¹ At trial, Petitioner's counsel questioned Georgina Tassin as to the potential bearing of her testimony on her sentence.¹² Georgina Tassin testified that she could receive a sentence of up to 99 years, that she did not know whether her testimony would affect her sentencing, and that no promises were made to her concerning her testimony.¹³ Georgina Tassin's testimony was crucial to the State's case as it provided the only evidence of a plan to commit armed robbery. In closing arguments, the State argued that Georgina Tassin was not motivated by her plea bargain to corroborate the State's theory of the case because the 99-year sentence she faced for armed robbery was tantamount to a life sentence for first degree murder. In summation the State argued:

Does she have any reason to lie to anybody? She faces up to ninety-nine years in jail for armed robbery. Mr. DeLaup questioned her, were any deals made with you, Georgina, about how much time your going to do in jail? She said, none.... She knows where she's going to be. She knows that only the judge can sentence her, and only the Judge can decide how much time, she's going to get in jail. So she had no reason to lie to anybody on the stand here today. ...¹⁴

On rebuttal the State argued, "Mr. DeAgano started attacking Georgina .... He wants to make it look like Georgina got some kind of deal. You call five to ninety-nine years a deal"?¹⁵

In State post-conviction proceedings, Petitioner claimed that during Georgina Tassin's plea bargaining the trial judge, Judge Jacob Karno, represented to Georgina Tassin through her attorney that she could expect to receive 10 years if she testified, based on the consistency of her testimony. Petitioner argued that the failure of the State to correct Georgina Tassin's misleading testimony on this point violated his due process rights. Petitioner compiled a large amount of evidence to support this claim. Georgina Tassin's attorney, Robert Pastor, testified that he met with Judge Karno and Guy DeLaup, the State prosecutor, to address his concern that Georgina Tassin could still receive up to 99 years for armed robbery despite her willingness to testify.¹⁶ Pastor testified that Judge Karno told him that although he usually gave 15 to 20 years for such an offense he would be willing to sentence Georgina Tassin to 10 years depending on the consistency of her testimony.¹⁷ Mills' attorney, John Craft, testified that he recalled Pastor's exact words after the conference with the prosecutor and the judge to be "Judge Karno said Georgina is going to get 10 years."¹⁸ Georgina Tassin testified in post-conviction proceedings that when she made her plea bargain she was told that she was looking at 10 years based on the consistency of her testimony.¹⁹ In post-conviction proceedings, she testified that when she testified at Petitioner's trial that she faced 99 years for armed robbery it was her understanding that she was going to receive 10 years.²⁰ Petitioner presented a letter written by Georgina Tassin to a friend in which she stated that she was looking at 10 years.²¹ Mills testified that her attorney urged her to plead to armed robbery based on the fact that Georgina Tassin would receive 10 years for making such a plea.²² Petitioner's trial counsel suspected that Georgina Tassin had negotiated some deal with the State, so he attempted, to no avail, to uncover the nature of her understanding with the State and Judge Karno through a discovery motion and in cross-examining Georgina Tassin.²³ After all parties involved made strategic decisions based on the representations of Judge Karno, Georgina Tassin testified consistently with the State's theory and received the 10-year sentence she was told to expect.

In post-conviction proceedings, the State argued that Georgina Tassin's testimony was not false because no firm promise was made to her by the State or Judge Karno and that Petitioner was thus not denied due process. The State post-conviction court agreed and denied Petitioner's claim based on a finding that Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence that a promise was made to Georgina Tassin.²⁴

LEGAL STANDARDS

A. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the "AEDPA"), federal courts can grant habe as corpus relief when a State court decision is contrary to or...