Washington v. Beard

• Decision Date: 16 January 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION No. 07-3462
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• Parties: ANTHONY WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY BEARD, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al., Respondents.

ANTHONY WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY BEARD, Commissioner,Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al., Respondents.

CIVIL ACTION No. 07-3462

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

January 16, 2015

THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE

OPINION

Stengel, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Anthony Washington's Conviction for First-Degree Murder in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia ......................................................................................... 3

II. Mr. Washington's Post-Conviction Relief Act Petitions ....................................... 11

III. A Brief History of Mr. Washington's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ..... 13

IV. The District Court's Legal Standard for Determining the Merits of a Habeas Petition .............................................................................................................................. 17

V. A Discussion of Certain Issues Raised by Mr. Washington's Habeas Petition ... 18

A. Claim 2: The Use of the Co-Defendant's Statement at Mr. Washington's Trial ............................................................................................................................... 18

1. Bruton, Richardson, and Gray ............................................................................. 18

2. The Redacted Statement of Derrick Teagle ......................................................... 20

3. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's View of the Bruton Issue ........................... 26

4. What AEDPA Requires for Habeas Relief .......................................................... 275. This Court's Review of the State Court Rulings Under the AEDPA Habeas Standard ...................................................................................................................... 29

B. Claim 3: Did the Prosecutor's Closing Argument Violate Bruton? ................. 41

1. In His Closing, the Prosecutor Referred to Teagle's Statement and Specifically to Washington ............................................................................................................. 42

2. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addressed This Issue Directly ...................... 44

3. This Claim is Exhausted for AEDPA Purposes ................................................... 45

4. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Decision on This Issue was Contrary to Federal Law ................................................................................................................ 46

5. This Constitutional Violation Was More than Harmless Error ........................... 48

C. Claim 1: Washington Claims He is "Innocent" Because Newly Discovered Evidence Shows He Was Not the Shooter .................................................................. 50

1. AEDPA § 2254(d) Does Not Apply .................................................................... 51

2. PCRA Waiver Rule is "Adequate" in Petitioner's Case ...................................... 53

3. Exhaustion and Procedural Default ..................................................................... 57

4. The Brady case and Procedurally Defaulted Claims ........................................... 63

5. The Commonwealth's Suppression of Evidence Establishes "Cause" ................ 65

6. When Considered Together, the Suppressed Documents Were Material and The Commonwealth's Failure to Disclose Them Was Prejudicial .................................... 68

7. The Evidence Withheld by the Commonwealth Was Very Likely Favorable to Mr. Washington .......................................................................................................... 84

VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 86

Petitioner Anthony Washington was convicted of first-degree murder by a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. After exhausting his state court remedies, the petitioner filed a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

The petitioner requested and I held a limited evidentiary hearing.¹ For the reasons discussed below, I will grant Mr. Washington's habeas petition, vacate his conviction and death sentence, and require the Commonwealth to retry Mr. Washington.

I. Anthony Washington's Conviction for First-Degree Murder in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia²

On the night of January 23, 1993, two men robbed a Save-A-Lot in the Kensington section of Philadelphia.³ Tracy Lawson, the store's unarmed security guard, chased the robbers.⁴ Office Gerard Smith, an off-duty police officer who was moonlighting as a security guard at an adjacent store, also pursued the robbers and fired a shot at them.⁵ One of the robbers, while fleeing, fired in Lawson's direction.⁶ Lawson, the securityguard, was hit in the head with a bullet and killed.⁷ Ballistics testing found that Officer Smith's gun did not fire the fatal shot.⁸

At trial, the jury was presented with evidence that the petitioner and Derrick Teagle were involved in the robbery. Three store employees, Cielito Rodriguez, Suphea Phongsak Lance and Anne Marie Buchanan testified as did two customers, Juana Robles and Michael Murphy. All were present in the Save-A-Lot at the time of the robbery.⁹ The witnesses gave similar accounts of the facts.¹⁰ Two men came into the store, asking for job applications.¹¹ They purchased a bag of potato chips.¹² The two men left and returned several minutes later.¹³ One man pulled out a gun and ordered employees to open thecash registers.¹⁴ The other man went with Buchanan, the assistant manager, to open the store safe.¹⁵ It was not clear if this second robber had a gun.¹⁶ In the meantime, Lawson began to close the metal grate on the store's entrance.¹⁷ Hearing the grate close, the robbers fled under the grate and across the parking lot.¹⁸ The man with the gun near theregisters left a potato chip bag on the counter.¹⁹ The employees and Robles remained in the store.²⁰ They heard one shot fired outside.²¹

As the two men fled, Lawson ran after them.²² Officer Smith, after being alerted to the robbery, also pursued the robbers.²³ Smith heard gunshots, and he fired a shot in their direction.²⁴ Smith testified that one robber turned around, pointed a gun in Lawson'sdirection, and fired a shot.²⁵ Lawson was struck in the head and died.²⁶ The robbers fled in a getaway car.²⁷

At an August 1993 line-up, Suphea Phongsak Lance positively identified Teagle as the man with the gun at the cash register.²⁸ She could not identify the petitioner as the other robber.²⁹ Cielito Rodriguez had given a detailed description of the man with the gun—one which described Teagle.³⁰ She also testified that this man left the potato chip bag on the counter.³¹ Teagle's fingerprints matched those found on the potato chip bag.

During the August 1993 line-up, the other in-store witnesses could not make positive identifications of either the petitioner or Teagle.³³ At a separate line-up in November 1993, which was ordered by the court, Officer Smith identified the petitioner as the robber who shot at Lawson.³⁴ He had also previously identified the petitioner in a photo array in March 1993.³⁵ Officer Smith again identified the petitioner as the shooter at the preliminary hearing and at trial.³⁶ Robles, who had previously been unable to identify the petitioner at the line-up, identified him in court as the robber with the gun.³⁷

Anthony Washington's former girlfriend, Melissa Harrington, and her sister, Martha Harrington, both testified that Washington confessed to being the shooter.³⁸ Martha Harrington also testified that the petitioner owned a three-quarter length greenleather coat.³⁹ One of the robbers was described as wearing a three-quarter length green leather coat.⁴⁰ David Cooper, an employee of an adjacent store who was in the parking lot at the time of the shooting, indicated that the taller of the two assailants had a gun when they fled.⁴¹ Washington was the taller of the two.⁴² The petitioner's brother, Elijah Washington, testified that the petitioner had beeped him on the night of the robbery.⁴³ Elijah came to the house of the petitioner's then-girlfriend, Meshe Miller, and found Washington, Miller, and Teagle sitting in front of stacks of money.⁴⁴ The petitioner told Elijah to drive Teagle home because the police might be looking for the petitioner and Teagle.⁴⁵

Teagle gave a statement to the police prior to his arrest. This statement was offered as evidence by the Commonwealth at trial.⁴⁶ Teagle's statement outlined his involvement in the robbery and implicated Washington as the other robber. Some of these details matched those offered by witnesses. He claimed they both were carrying guns on the night of the robbery, but his gun did not work.⁴⁷ He implied that the petitioner, who had the working gun, was the shooter.⁴⁸ The petitioner's name was replaced with "blank" when the statement was read to the jury at trial.⁴⁹ Neither the petitioner nor Teagle testified at trial.⁵⁰

The jury convicted Anthony Washington of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death.⁵¹ Derrick Teagle was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to lifeimprisonment.⁵² On August 20, 1997, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the petitioner's conviction and death sentence on direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Washington, 700 A.2d 400 (Pa. 1997). His motion for reargument was denied on September 27, 1997. On June 26, 1998, the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari. Washington v. Pennsylvania, 524 U.S. 955 (1998).

II. Mr. Washington's Post-Conviction Relief Act Petitions

On July 7, 1998, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for relief under Pennsylvania's Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).⁵³ In his post-conviction proceedings, the petitioner had allegedly uncovered "evidence" that Teagle was the shooter. The Pennsylvania court did not grant a hearing.⁵⁴

Judge Poserina, the trial judge, dismissed the petition on July 28,...