U.S. ex rel. Frierson v. Gramley
| Decision Date | 30 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96 C 1486.,96 C 1486. |
| Citation | 952 F.Supp. 578 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. William FRIERSON, Petitioner, v. Richard B. GRAMLEY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
William Frierson, Galesburg, IL, pro se.
Darryl Belmonte Simko, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
Now before the court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and motion for appointment of counsel submitted by petitioner William Frierson. For the reasons that follow, the court denies both the motion for appointment of counsel and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Frierson was convicted by a jury in state court of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault for raping a woman who was paralyzed from the waist down and wheelchair-bound.1 Frierson was sentenced to two concurrent 18-year terms of imprisonment. He appealed his conviction, which was affirmed. He petitioned for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which denied his petition. Frierson then filed a petition in state court for post-conviction relief; his petition was denied. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Frierson's post-conviction petition, and the Illinois Supreme Court denied his petition for leave to appeal.
On March 14, 1996, Frierson filed in this court his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his current petition, Frierson raises essentially three multi-faceted arguments. First, Frierson claims that he was denied an impartial jury because the trial court failed to excuse a juror who said she would have a problem treating fairly a defendant accused of rape and improperly allowed the use of blind peremptory challenges.
Frierson also alleges that his trial counsel were constitutionally ineffective, in that they failed to subpoena two witnesses who were present in the house where Frierson had sex with the victim; never told Frierson that he had a right to testify, and in fact told him that he could not testify, at his trial; and failed to obtain important medical records.
Finally, in his reply to the state's answer to his petition, Frierson claims that the trial court's refusal to permit him to impeach the victim concerning her prostitution activities deprived Frierson of his constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to present his case and confront his accuser.
In addition to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Frierson moves for appointment of counsel. Counsel is to be appointed in a habeas corpus proceeding if an evidentiary hearing is required or if the interests of justice so require. See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).
The court finds it unnecessary to hold an evidentiary hearing to decide Frierson's habeas petition. In addition, while Frierson is a pro se petitioner, he has presented the court with coherent and intelligible bases for his petition, including relevant law and facts, and the court is able to decide his petition based on the information he has provided. Thus, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, the court denies Frierson's motion for appointment of counsel.
The state contends that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("Act"), effective April 24, 1996, applies to Frierson's petition even though his petition was filed prior to the effective date of the Act. Under the Act, federal habeas relief is not available for any claim adjudicated on the merits by a state court unless the state decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court, or the state court's determination of the facts was unreasonable in light of the evidence. Pub.L. 104-132, Tit. I, § 104(3), 110 Stat. 1219 ( 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)).
The state is correct. The Seventh Circuit recently has held that the amended section 2254(d) applies to cases that were pending at the time the Act took effect. Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856, 867 (7th Cir.1996), cert. granted in part, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 726, 136 L.Ed.2d 643 (1997). Accordingly, the court must evaluate Frierson's claims in light of the new standard set forth above.
The court finds that Frierson presented to the Illinois appellate and supreme courts all of the grounds for relief that he set forth in his original habeas petition. Accordingly, Frierson has not procedurally defaulted any of the claims raised in his original petition, and the court will address each of these claims on its merits. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731-32, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55, 115 L.Ed.2d 640, reh'g denied, 501 U.S. 1277, 112 S.Ct. 27, 115 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1991).
However, Frierson's claim, raised for the first time in his reply, that the trial court violated his constitutional rights to confront his accuser and present a defense by barring him from impeaching the victim with evidence of her prostitution activities is a different story. Therefore, the court will address the issue of procedural default as to that claim separately, in section F. below.
Frierson argues that the trial court should have excused for cause a juror who stated that she did not know if she could be fair to a defendant who was accused of rape. Frierson also argues that the trial judge erred in using a system of blind peremptory challenges. Frierson alleges that these occurrences violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
During the voir dire in Frierson's criminal trial, the trial judge questioned a juror on her ability to sit impartially on the jury in Frierson's case. The judge asked, and the juror answered, the following:
Can you better explain to me how you might have that difficulty?
Now, the question I have of you is this: I have to instruct you as to the law, and it is your obligation to follow the law. And that doesn't have to do with the general assessment on how things are treated seriously or not seriously. Knowing that, do you think you will be able to sit as a juror in this case?
So you think you are going to be able to give this man a fair trial?
(Answer Ex. K at A138-42.)
After this exchange, counsel for Frierson asked the judge for a sidebar, in which she moved to exclude the juror just questioned for cause. (Id. at A143.) Defense counsel stated that she believed that the juror could not give Frierson a fair trial because the juror initially had expressed reluctance to follow the law and said that she would have no choice but to follow the law, and had strong feelings about crimes against women. (Id. at 144.) Counsel stated that she was afraid that the juror would use this opportunity to speak out against Frierson, regardless of the evidence. (Id.)
The judge stated that the juror said she believed that society does not treat crimes against women as seriously as it should, which was the basis for the judge making further inquiry. (Id. at 145.) He stated that his further inquiry indicated to him that the juror could perform her duties as a juror despite her overall belief. (Id.) Therefore, the judge denied defense counsel's motion to excuse the juror for cause. (Id.)
In his petition for habeas relief, Frierson contends that the trial court's refusal to excuse the juror for cause deprived him of an impartial jury.
The question of whether an individual juror is impartial is one of historical fact: "did [the] juror swear that [she] could set aside any opinion [she] might hold and decide the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
French v. Jones
...the federal habeas court would presume the facts correct for purposes of reviewing the habeas petition. United States ex. rel. Frierson v. Gramley, 952 F.Supp. 578, 581 (N.D.Ill.1997). Because the State of Michigan never challenged the Michigan Court of Appeals' findings of fact either by w......
-
Kraemer v. Grounds
...petition, and the State was not allowed an opportunity to respond, we may still consider the argument. U.S. ex rel. Frierson v. Gramley, 952 F. Supp. 578, 587 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Subsection (B) starts the clock running at "the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by S......