Williams v. McCarthy
| Docket Number | 1:19-CV-01007 EAW |
| Decision Date | 28 December 2023 |
| Parties | JASON WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. TIMOTHY McCARTHY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, Chief Judge United States District Court.
Pro se petitioner Jason Williams (“Petitioner”) seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 1). Petitioner is in Respondent's custody pursuant to a judgment entered against him on May 27, 2015, in Erie County Court of New York State (Franczyk, J.). (Id. at 1).[1] Petitioner was convicted after a jury trial of four counts of first-degree robbery (New York Penal Law (“P.L.”) § 160.15(1), (2) and (4)) and one count of fourth-degree grand larceny (P.L. § 155.30(8)). (Id.). For the reasons below, the request for a writ of habeas corpus is denied, and the petition is dismissed.
On July 25, 2014, an Erie County grand jury returned a seven-count indictment, see Respondent's Exhibit (“Resp't Ex.”) A, charging Petitioner with second-degree attempted murder in violation of P.L. §§ 110.00/125.25(1) (count one); first-degree robbery (armed with a deadly weapon) in violation of P.L. § 160.15(2) (count two); first-degree robbery (caused serious physical injury) in violation of P.L. § 160.15(1) (count three); first-degree robbery (armed with a deadly weapon) under an accomplice theory in violation of P.L. §§ 20.00/160.15(2) (count four); first-degree robbery (displayed a firearm) in violation of P.L. § 160.15(4) (); and fourth-degree grand larceny in violation of P.L. § 155.30(8) (count seven). Counts one, two, and three involved Rosario Barone (“Barone”); count four involved William Weigold (“Weigold”); count five involved Stephanie Frank (“Frank”); and counts six and seven involved Melvin Johnson (“Johnson”).
The parties appeared on February 10, 2015, before Erie County Court Judge Thomas P. Franczyk (“trial court”) for a combined Wade/Huntley hearing to determine the admissibility of Johnson and Frank's identification evidence and Petitioner's custodial statements to the police.[2] The six-photograph array shown to Johnson was introduced as People's Exhibit 3; the six-photograph array shown to Franks was introduced as People's Exhibit 5. (H: 15, 29-30).[3] In both arrays, Petitioner's photograph was in the second position, i.e., the middle photograph on the top row of three photographs. (Id.).
Buffalo Police Department (“BPD”) Detective Thomas O'Brien (“O'Brien”) testified that he went to Johnson's home at about 10:00 p.m. on May 16, 2014, and showed him a photographic array that had been prepared by another detective in his office. (H: 9, 15). The photographic array consisted of six black and white photographs on a gray background. (H: 17). All photographs depicted black males with short hair and some facial hair; all men were facing forward. (H: 16-17). O'Brien instructed Johnson that the person of interest may or may not be in the array, that he should not assume O'Brien knew who the perpetrator is and should not look to him for guidance, and that he should take as much time as he needed. (H: 12-13). At that time, O'Brien did not know what Petitioner looked like; he only knew that he was a black male. (H: 15, 18). O'Brien then handed the folder containing the array to Johnson on the front porch, which had “decent lighting.” (H: 10, 14, 21). Johnson opened the folder and “instantly pointed to [Petitioner's photograph].” (H: 14, 16).
Detective Scott Malec (“Malec”) testified that on May 24, 2014, he was asked by two detectives working on Petitioner's case to show a photographic array to Frank at the police station. (H: 29-30). It was a “double blind” identification procedure meaning that Malec “knew nothing about the case.” (H: 32). Only Malec and Frank were in the room when he showed her the photo array; the room had several windows and “plenty of light.” (H: 32, 43). He could not remember if the light was on; he would have put on the light if necessary. (H: 44). Malec read to Frank the same standard instructions that O'Brien had provided to Johnson. (H: 32-34). Malec testified that the array consisted of six color photographs of black males; all had the same complexion, short hair, and some facial hair. (H: 30, 36-37). They all appeared to be in their “late teens, early twenties.” (H: 37). Malec handed the folder to Frank; when she opened it, Malec asked her if she recognized anyone and if so, which photograph. (H: 36). Frank replied “two,” circled the photograph, and initialed next it. (H: 36, 44). When Malec asked from where she recognized number two, Frank said, “he took me into the hallway, made me give him oral sex, [and] robbed me of my cell phone and money out of my pockets.” (H: 36, 44).
The trial court denied the suppression motion at the conclusion of the hearing. The trial court first made detailed findings of fact regarding the composition of the photographs in each of the arrays. (H: 81-82). The trial court found that the array shown to Johnson contained photos of six “black males, [who] appear to be somewhere in their twenties”; five of them, including Petitioner, are wearing black t-shirts, and number one was wearing a gray t-shirt; and their skin tones “all appear to be more or less in the same range,” with number five having the darkest skin tone. (H: 81). The skin tone of Petitioner and numbers one, three, and six were “similar colored.” (Id.). All had “varying degrees of facial hair including light mustaches,” with numbers three and six having “slightly fuller” mustaches; and all had hair on their chins and framing their jawlines. (H: 80-81). As far as the jawline hair, number one's was “somewhat thin[],” Petitioner's was “a little bit more,” number three's was “a little bit more than that,” number four's was “a little patchier,” number five's was “a little neater,” and number six's was “a little fuller.” (H: 81). The trial court found that Petitioner and number one had hair “very similar in length,” with Petitioner's hair being “slightly less well kempt.” (Id.). The trial court described number three's hair as “more tightly cropped,” while number four's was “somewhat thinner.” (H: 81-82). Number five had a “relatively full head of hair, but less full” than numbers one and three. (H: 82). Number six had a “somewhat full head of hair which is somewhat similar to [Petitioner]'s in that it is a little bit unkempt at the top.” (Id.).
With regard to the array shown to Frank, the trial court found that the “skin color [of all six men] appear[ed] to be pretty similar across the board,” and their “facial hair [was] all pretty similar.” (Id.). They “all” had “similar hair in terms of the length” with Defendant's hair being “a little more tousled than the others.” (Id.).
The trial court concluded that the photo arrays did not create a substantial likelihood that Petitioner was “singled out” for identification; nor was there “any indication that the officers were kind of red-flagging [him] as the person they were looking for.” (Id.). The trial court stated that it did not “necessarily agree with [defense] counsel's comments that [Petitioner] jumps out at you unless you knew him or had an encounter with him.” (Id.). Accordingly, the trial court denied the motion to suppress the identifications made by Johnson and Frank. (Id.).
Petitioner's jury trial commenced on April 9, 2015. The prosecution called approximately two dozen witnesses. The defense did not call any witnesses. (TT: 587).[4]A summary of the relevant testimony follows.[5]
1. The Incidents Involving Johnson
Johnson testified that on the afternoon of May 8, 2014, he went to his friend's apartment on the corner of Allen Street and Mariner Avenue in the City of Buffalo. (TT: 476). As soon as he opened the door, he was grabbed by four men, one of whom put a black revolver to his head. (TT: 477). Johnson knew Petitioner, as he was the nephew of one of Johnson's friends. (TT: 484). Johnson said that Petitioner was not the gunman but instead pushed him from behind at some point during the assault. (TT: 477-78).
Johnson tried to turn and run, but the men grabbed his bookbag, pulled him back, and began hitting him in the face with the gun. (TT: 476-77). The men stole his money, cell phone, and ring. (TT: 477). After ordering Johnson to lie face down and count to one hundred, the men took his bookbag and fled. (TT: 479).
On the evening of May 16, 2014, Johnson drove his girlfriend's gray minivan to his friend Antonio's house on Montclair Avenue in Buffalo. (TT: 484-85). Johnson was trying to ascertain Petitioner's whereabouts. (TT: 485). Two of Johnson's friends who had driven over with him stayed in the minivan while he was inside speaking to Antonio. (TT: 488). At some point, there was a knock on the door; it was Petitioner. (TT: 488-99).
Johnson answered the door and confronted Petitioner about the robbery on May 6, 2014. (TT: 491). Petitioner claimed that he did not know the other men were going to rob him. (Id.). Johnson attacked Petitioner, who pulled out a gun. (Id.). Johnson's friends in the minivan ran over to help him. (Id.). During the ensuing struggle, the gun fell on the ground. Petitioner pulled a second gun out of his pocket. (Id.). Antonio grabbed Johnson and brought him inside the house where Johnson called 911 while his friends kept fighting with Petitioner over the gun. (TT: 492). One of Johnson's friends then got back into the minivan and tried to leave. (TT: 493). Petitioner ran over and held a gun to that person's head, ordered him out of the vehicle, and drove away in the minivan, leaving behind one of his guns. (TT: 493-94).
BPD Officer Donald Myers ...
To continue reading
Request your trial