Williams v. Bradt

• Decision Date: 30 March 2016
• Docket Number: 10-CV-3910 (DLI)
• Parties: KEVIN WILLIAMS, pro se, Petitioner, v. MARK BRADT, Superintendent, Elmira Correctional Facility, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

KEVIN WILLIAMS, pro se, Petitioner, v. MARK BRADT, Superintendent, Elmira Correctional Facility, Respondent.

10-CV-3910 (DLI)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 30, 2016

OPINION AND ORDER

DORA L. IRIZARRY, United States District Judge:

Pro se Petitioner Kevin Williams ("Petitioner") seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See Pet., Dkt. Entry No. 1).¹ On November 29, 2005, following a nonjury trial, the New York State Supreme Court, Queens County ("Queens County Supreme Court"), entered a judgment convicting Petitioner of Murder in the Second Degree, Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree, and imposing a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment. In light of Petitioner's pro se status, the Court liberally construes the Petition, Amended Petition (Am. Pet., Dkt. Entry No. 38), and supporting memoranda as together raising several claims for habeas relief.² Respondent, through its counsel Queens County District Attorney, opposes each claim. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's habeas application is dismissed in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

I. The Offense

The evidence adduced at trial indicates that on the morning of February 14, 2003, at roughly 7:30 a.m., Petitioner murdered his friend and business partner Shawn Duncan, A.K.A. Shawn O'Neal Douglas ("Douglas"), at Douglas' home in Queens County, New York. After stabbing Douglas several times in the arms, chest, and neck, Petitioner shot Douglas in the forehead, killing him. There were no eyewitnesses to the murder. In late May 2003, Petitioner was arrested for Douglas' murder.

II. The Case against Petitioner

At trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of Petitioner's then-wife, Melissa Williams ("Ms. Williams"). According to Ms. Williams, on the morning of Douglas' murder, she awoke shortly after 7:00 a.m. to find that Petitioner was not at the apartment they shared in Brooklyn, New York. (See State Record, Transcript of Petitioner's Oct. 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, and Nov. 1, 2005 Nonjury Trial ("Tr.") 96, 99-100, 125, 131-32.) Ms. Williams called Petitioner on his cellphone and spoke to him briefly. (Tr. 99-100, 102, 131-32) Petitioner returned to the apartment between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. that morning, immediately retrieved Windex and a roll of paper towels, and exited the apartment. (Tr. 100-02, 125.) Petitioner returned 15 to 20 minutes later and went directly into the bathroom, leaving the door slightly ajar. (Tr. 102-03.) Smelling bleach, Ms. Williams opened the door and peeked in. (Tr. 103, 126.) She saw Petitioner washing a bloody knife in the sink, with a black and silver handgun resting on the countertop. (Tr. 103-05, 109-10, 126, 130-31.) Petitioner told Ms. Williams to get out of the bathroom. (Tr. 104.) After she did so, Petitioner turned the shower on and proceeded to clean the bathroom. (Tr. 104, 110-11, 126.)

When Petitioner exited the bathroom, he went directly to a spare room in the apartment that was empty aside from a television and in-wall air conditioning unit ("AC"). (Tr. 112, 126-28.) Ms. Williams heard Petitioner remove the vent on the AC and then replace it again. (Tr. 113.) Petitioner thereafter came into the living room where Ms. Williams was sitting, approached her, and told her that she would have big problems if she did not stay quiet about what she had seen that morning. (Tr. 113-15.) Petitioner warned her that if she said anything, she would go to jail and the state would take her child away. (Tr. 115.) Petitioner then left the apartment again, returning about an hour later. (Tr. 116.) He again approached Ms. Williams and instructed her to say that he had been home all morning if anyone asked about his whereabouts. (Tr. 115-16.) Early the next morning, Ms. Williams heard Petitioner talking on the phone to his cousin, Jonathan Alejandro ("Mr. Alejandro"). (Tr. 116-17.) After the call ended, Petitioner went into the spare room and Ms. Williams again heard him remove the vent on the AC. (Tr. 117.) Petitioner then left the apartment.

Several days later, Ms. Williams accompanied Petitioner on a trip to Florida. When she returned from Florida, she separated from Petitioner and stayed temporarily with an uncle in Queens. (Tr. 120.) On May 29, 2003, Petitioner showed up the uncle's house, looking for Ms. Williams. (Tr. 121). Ms. Williams was frightened because she had not told Petitioner where she was staying. (Tr. 121-22.) She asked her uncle to drive her to the police station, where Ms. Williams spoke to police and ultimately implicated Petitioner in Douglas' murder. (Tr. 122.) In the days that followed, Petitioner repeatedly told Ms. Williams to write a letter admitting that the police coerced her into "saying what [she] did." (Tr. 122-24.) Ms. Williams refused to do so. (Tr. 123-24.)

The prosecution also presented the testimony of Mr. Alejandro. According to Mr.Alejandro, Petitioner called him sometime around mid-February 2003 and stated that he was having money problems with his "best friend," whom Petitioner had identified as Douglas in previous conversations. (Tr. 209-11.) Petitioner told Mr. Alejandro that he needed to "get" this other person before they "got" him. (Tr. 210-12, 242.) A few days later, Petitioner called Mr. Alejandro and said that he needed a favor. (Tr. 215-16, 229-30, 238.) Petitioner thereafter came to Mr. Alejandro's home in Brooklyn. Once inside, he produced two guns, some boxes of ammunition, and a holster, telling Mr. Alejandro to get rid of them for him. (Tr. 216-17, 229-30, 234, 238-39.) Mr. Alejandro reluctantly agreed, wrapped the items in old clothing, and stashed them in a closet in his apartment. (Tr. 217-19, 243.)

Several days later, Mr. Alejandro received another call from Petitioner, who said that he was in Florida with his wife. (Tr. 219-20.) Petitioner asked Mr. Alejandro if he had disposed of the guns yet. (Tr. 220.) Mr. Alejandro said that he had, even though he actually had not and the guns were still in his closet, untouched. (Tr. 220-21, 223.) After Petitioner returned from Florida, he again met with Mr. Alejandro and asked him whether the guns were gone. (Tr. 221-23.) Mr. Alejandro thereupon asked whether the guns had been used to hurt anyone. (Tr. 221-23.) Petitioner responded that he "had to take [his best friend] out," because otherwise his best friend was "basically going to take him out." (Tr. 222-23.)

On May 30, 2003, police officers came to Mr. Alejandro's home (Tr. 223-24.) After some discussion, Mr. Alejandro allowed the officers into his home and directed them to the guns hidden in his closet. (Tr. 225-27, 248-49.) Detective Drew, one of the detectives present, testified at trial that police recovered two firearms, an ammunition clip, a holster, and two boxes of ammunition from the closet. (Tr. 187-88.) One of the firearms was a 9 millimeter Luger "Ruger" Model 95DC, a black and silver handgun. (Tr. 188, 349.) Ballistics tests introducedthrough testimony at trial showed that a cartridge and shell recovered from the scene of Douglas' murder came from the Ruger. (Tr. 347-50.) Tests also confirmed that a bullet recovered from the morgue was fired from the Ruger. (Tr. 350-55.) Investigators attempted to lift fingerprints from the weapon, but were unsuccessful. (Tr. 355-56.) In addition, the prosecution presented DNA evidence taken from a sample of blood recovered from the driver's side sun visor of Petitioner's vehicle, a 1997 Acura, which police had impounded and inspected in connection with their investigation. (Tr. 154-58, 324-30.) A forensic biologist from the New York City Medical Examiner testified that DNA tests matched the blood to Douglas. (Tr. 157-58, 324-30.)

Finally, the prosecution presented the testimony of Detective Cottage, who took Petitioner into custody just after midnight on May 30, 2003 for questioning in connection with Douglas' murder. (Tr. 263.) Petitioner was escorted to an interview room, where Detective Cottage and another office began interrogating him at around 2:00 a.m. (Tr. 265-67.) During the course of that interview, Detective Cottage produced to Petitioner, without comment, a photograph depicting the firearms and other items police had recovered from Mr. Alejandor's closet. (Tr. 270-72.) Seeing the picture, Petitioner sighed and said, "[T]hat bitch . . . she gave me up." (Tr. 272.) Petitioner then rattled off a series of "what ifs," asking "what if he had a knife?" and "what if he attacked me first?" (Tr. 272-73.) The detectives did not respond, except to administer a Miranda warning and place Petitioner under arrest. (Tr. 273.)

III. Evidentiary Proceedings

A. Huntley Hearing

Prior to trial, Petitioner moved to suppress the inculpatory statements he made to police. A Huntley hearing was held, where Detective Cottage was the sole testifying witness.³ (SeeState Record, Transcript of Mar. 10, 2004 Huntley Hearing ("H. Tr.")) Detective Cottage testified that he began the interrogation by asking Petitioner for basic "pedigree information," such as his name, residence, and date of birth. (H. Tr. 28-29.) After supplying some of that information, Petitioner asked why he was there. (H. Tr. 29.) Detective Cottage told Petitioner that Douglas' murder was the reason. (Id.) Petitioner smiled and shook his head, "almost out of disgust." (Id.) The detectives then told Petitioner that if he wanted to write a statement, now was the time to do so. (Id.) Petitioner did not respond. (H. Tr. 30.) At that point, Detective Cottage read Petitioner his Miranda rights from a form, asking after each right whether Petitioner understood. (H. Tr. 6-7.) Aside from a "smirk," Petitioner gave no verbal response. (H. Tr. 7.) However, after Detective Cottage advised Petitioner that he had the right to consult with an attorney and to remain silent until that time, Petitioner stated, "I'm not speaking unless the district attorney is here." (H. Tr. 8.)...