Watson v. Artuz, 99 Civ. 1364 (PAE) (GWG)

• Decision Date: 30 January 2018
• Docket Number: 99 Civ. 1364 (PAE) (GWG)
• Citation: 283 F.Supp.3d 217
• Parties: Shane WATSON, Petitioner, v. Christopher ARTUZ, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

283 F.Supp.3d 217

Shane WATSON, Petitioner,

v.Christopher ARTUZ, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent.

99 Civ. 1364 (PAE) (GWG)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed January 30, 2018

Mitchell J. Briskey, The Legal Aid Society, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Shane Watson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B).¹ Watson seeks review of his conviction for second-degree murder. In the petition before this Court, Watson alleges that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because (1) his conviction was based on perjured testimony; (2) his conviction was based upon evidence that the prosecution knew or should have known was false; and (3) the prosecution withheld material exculpatory evidence. Watson's attack on his conviction centers on the recantation testimony of a critical prosecution witness, Christine Holloway. For the reasons stated below, Watson's petition should be denied.

I. FACTS

A. Background

On October 9, 1991, Mark Johnson was shot and killed at 1961 Schieffelin Avenue in the Bronx, New York. (Crecco: Tr. 442:2–444:16; Holloway: Tr. 529:9–13, 536:24–537:21; Jones: Tr. 696:12–697:15).² On November 12, 1991, Watson was indicted for Johnson's murder. Respondent's Brief, People v. Watson, dated Aug. 1997 (attached as Ex. 3 to Braun Decl.) ("Resp't Appeal Br."), at 3.³ On October 13, 1993, following a jury trial, Watson was convicted of murder in the second degree. (Tr. 879, 946:6–949:7). Judgment in the case was entered on November 23, 1993, and Watson was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. Resp't Appeal Br. at 1; Brief for Defendant–Appellant, People v. Watson, dated May 1997 (attached as Ex. 2 to Braun Decl.) ("Def. Appeal Br."), at 1.

B. Trial

At trial, Holloway was the only witness who made an in-court identification of Watson as the person who killed Johnson. (See Holloway: Tr. 543:6–544:19, 575:23–576:2). According to Holloway, on the night of the shooting, she was returning home from her job as a corrections officer. (Id. 528:14–529:13). While driving on Schieffelin Avenue in the Bronx, Holloway saw a BMW automobile with its lights on parked near a fire hydrant and someone standing beside the car. (Id. 530:2–531:15). Holloway then turned right from Schieffelin Avenue into her building's parking lot. (Id. 530:2–532:4). As Holloway was driving forward in the parking lot and preparing to back her car into a parking space, another person wearing a "dark-colored hooded jacket" or "sweater hood" and "dark pants" walked in front of her car, whom Holloway ultimately identified as the petitioner. (See id. 531:24–533:5, 534:11–17, 543:25–544:19). Holloway was able to see the individual's face and other aspects of his appearance. (See id. 533:21–535:19). Holloway testified that "their face was in a scowl, like they was angry." (Id. 534:7). She described his eyebrows as being "like a hood over [his] eyes." (Id. 535:16–17). There was nothing blocking her view of him. (Id. 545:17–20). She saw his eyes, his mouth, and his forehead just below the hairline. (See id. 588:21–590:20).

After the person walked in front of her car, Holloway backed her car into a parking spot while still facing the direction that she saw the person walk past. (See id. 536:17–23). After Holloway parked, she heard a gunshot, looked up, and saw the person who had walked in front of her car shooting the person she had previously seen by the BMW. (See id. 536:24–538:19). The shooter began to chase the victim and run in the direction towards Holloway, and she again had an opportunity to view the shooter's face and other aspects of his appearance. (See id. 538:6–539:9). The shooter chased the victim around a building, out of Holloway's line of sight. (See id. 539:20–540:6). Then, the shooter returned from around the building and Holloway again had an opportunity to see him across Schieffelin Avenue. (See id. 540:10–541:7). After the police arrived on the scene, Holloway exited her car and eventually went to the police precinct to report what she saw. (See id. 541:22–542:11).

As part of the investigation into the shooting, Holloway participated in a line-up to identify the shooter, during which she identified Watson. (See id. 542:12–544:19). Holloway also gave an in-court identification of Watson as the shooter. (See id. 543:25–544:19).

Holloway testified that she was approximately five feet away from the shooter when she first saw him. (Id. 544:21–545:15). Nothing blocked her view of the shooter and there was lighting provided by the exterior lights of her car and lights in the parking lot. (See Holloway: Tr. 545:17–546:2). Holloway repeated that she was able to see the shooter's face. (See id. 546:3–4). When asked if she had any doubt about her identification of the petitioner, she answered "no." (Id. 543:20–24).

Monique James testified that she was in the bathroom of her apartment at 1961 Schieffelin Avenue when she heard gunshots, looked out a nearby window, and saw a "black male" of medium build and height running along the sidewalk. (M. James: Tr. 625:8–626:18, 629:6–12, 631:10–632:17, 634:8–636:12). Monique's sister, Robin James, was fourteen years old at the time of the shooting and testified that she was in her bedroom doing her homework when she heard gunshots, looked out her bedroom window, and also saw a man, dressed in black pants and a black "hoody" sweatshirt, holding a gun in his right hand and shooting at another man who was running ahead of him. (R. James: Tr. 648:23–650:15, 652:7–653:15, 663:2–11). The man being shot at fell to the ground approximately 18 feet away from her and directly across from the James's apartment. (R. James: Tr. 653:20–655:25).

Detective Sevelie Jones testified that Robin told him that the shooter was a "male black five feet eight, thin build, dark skin, approximately twenty years of age." (Jones: Tr. 735:9–15). Detective Jones showed Robin a photo array, and she identified Watson from the frontal array pictures. (See id. 736:4–737:3). Because she could make this identification from the frontal pictures, the detective did not ask her to make an identification from the profile pictures. (See id. 737:4–8). Monique described the shooter as a "[m]ale, brown skin, eighteen to twenty-two years of age, skinny, five feet nine" but stated that "she cannot I.D." the shooter. (Id. 729:15–19, 730:6–8). She identified Watson as the shooter from the profile array pictures but could not make an identification from the frontal array pictures. (M. James: Tr. 638:18–639:20, 641:23–644:24; Jones: Tr. 737:9–739:3). On October 15, 1991, two separate line-ups were conducted in which Monique and Robin positively identified Watson. (M. James: Tr. 639:6–642:22, 645:1–646:9; R. James: Tr. 666:10–668:12; Jones: Tr. 700:5–705:24, 757:2–761:8).

Detective Frank Morelli testified that on November 20, 1991, Holloway identified Watson as the shooter during a lineup. (See Morelli: Tr. 510:3–526:5; see also Holloway: Tr. 542:12–544:19).

The defense case consisted of two witnesses: Jesus Jimenez, a resident of the area who claimed to have seen the shooting and was familiar with Watson; and Marguerite Martin, a friend of Holloway. On the night of the shooting, Jimenez heard gun shots, looked out his window, and saw a man standing with his back to a body in the street. (See Jimenez: Tr. 770:2–771:8). Jimenez testified that the shooter then "shot twice to a car," and then "ran off." (Id. 771:9–13). The shooter passed in front of Jimenez's window, but Jimenez could not see his face. (Id. 776:11–18). Jimenez knew Watson (see id. 773:24–774:11) and was sure that Watson was not the shooter because the shooter did not "have the same body features as Mr. Watson," and walked differently than Watson, who was "bowlegged and [had] pigeon feet," (Id. 776:19–777:6).

Martin's grandchildren played with Holloway's children and she was thus familiar with Holloway. (See Martin: Tr. 790:22–791:14). Martin testified that she discussed the homicide with Holloway. (Id. 792:9–12). According to Martin, a few days after the shooting, Holloway told Martin that she had seen the shooter run past her car but "could not see his face." (Id. 792:18–793:6). The two discussed the case further and Holloway said that "the police were harassing her to be a witness." (Id. 793:16–19). The first time that the two discussed the homicide, Holloway claimed that "it was impossible for anybody to see the [shooter's] face because of the hood." (Id. 794:2–9). Martin indicated that she had been acquainted with the petitioner for years and that he was a friend of her children and other relatives. (Id. 794:14–17, 795:22–796:18).

C. Appeal of the 1993 Conviction and the First Federal Habeas Petition

Watson appealed his conviction, raising as issues that he was improperly excluded from the questioning of two jurors, that a juror was improperly discharged, that he was denied a full cross-examination of Holloway, that the trial court erred in not questioning a juror post-verdict, and that his sentence should be reduced in the interest of justice. See Def. Appeal Br. at 23–60. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. People v. Watson, 243 A.D.2d 426, 426, 663 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1st Dep't 1997). The Court of Appeals of New York denied Watson's request for leave to appeal. People v. Watson, 92 N.Y.2d 863, 677 N.Y.S.2d 94, 699 N.E.2d 454 (1998).

Watson filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Southern District of New York alleging that the state trial court "1) precluded certain cross-examination of Holloway; and 2) denied petitioner's motion to conduct an evidentiary hearing" into a juror's post-verdict statement, both in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. See Watson v. Artuz, 1999 WL 1075973, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 1999). His petition was denied on November 30, 1999. Id. at *7.

D. The 440.10...