Young v. McGinnis

• Decision Date: 01 February 2006
• Docket Number: No. 98-CV-281(JBW).,98-CV-281(JBW).
• Citation: 411 F.Supp.2d 278
• Parties: Jeffrey YOUNG, Petitioner, v. M.P. McGINNIS, Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

411 F.Supp.2d 278

Jeffrey YOUNG, Petitioner, v. M.P. McGINNIS, Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, Respondent.

No. 98-CV-281(JBW).

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

February 1, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Donna Newman, Esq., New York City, for Petitioner.

District Attorney of Kings County by Caroline D. Donhauser, Esq., Brooklyn, NY, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM, ORDER AND JUDGMENT

JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

                Table of Contents
                   I.  Introduction.................................................................283
                  II.  Evidence in Two Murders......................................................284
                 III.  Briefs in Two Cases..........................................................284
                  IV.  Hearing......................................................................284
                   V.  Booker Murder................................................................285
                  VI.  Graham Murder................................................................289
                 VII.  Summary of Petitioner's Claims in Two Murders................................295
                VIII.  Analysis of Contentions in Booker Murder Case................................296
                

                       A.  Failure to Instruct on Need for Accomplice Corroboration................296
                       B.  Limiting Cross-Examination..............................................300
                       C.  Prior Uncharged Crimes and Bad Acts; Admissions Instructions
                             Prosecutor's Summation................................................303
                           1.  Evidence of Another Homicide........................................304
                           2.  Threats Against Witness.............................................305
                           3.  Other Evidence of Prior Bad Acts or Uncharged Crimes................306
                           4.  Charge..............................................................306
                           5.  Prosecutor's Summation..............................................306
                       D.  Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt of Inculpatory Statements...............307
                       E.  Insufficient Evidence...................................................312
                       F.  False Testimony.........................................................313
                       G.  Inadequacy of Trial Counsel: Alibi......................................314
                       H.  Other Possible Claims...................................................317
                  IX.  Analysis of Contentions in Graham Murder Case...............................317
                       A.  Uncharged Robbery Evidence to Prove Motive..............................317
                       B.  Prejudicial Details of Uncharged Crimes.................................319
                       C.  Ineffective Assistance of Trial Attorney................................323
                           1.  General Competence..................................................323
                           2.  Argument Against Introduction of Uncharged Crime Evidence...........323
                           3.  Strategy............................................................324
                           4.  Failure to Move to Strike Testimony Respecting Prior
                                 Incarceration.....................................................324
                           5.  Failure to Request Curative Instructions............................325
                           6.  Waiver as to Uncharged Crimes.......................................325
                           7.  Failure to Cross-Examine............................................325
                           8.  Failure to Challenge Inadequate Police Investigation................325
                           9.  Failure to Investigate Claim Another Person was Perpetrator.........326
                           10.  Failure to Prepare and Consult with Petitioner.....................326
                       D.  Rosario and Brady Failures..............................................328
                           1.  Exhibit A...........................................................328
                           2.  Exhibit E...........................................................330
                           3.  Exhibit F...........................................................331
                       E.  Ineffective Appellate Counsel...........................................332
                           1.  Denial of Right to Testify Before Grand Jury........................333
                           2.  Failure to Cross-Examine Witnesses Using Grand Jury
                                 Testimony.........................................................334
                           3.  Failure to Utilize Phantom Murderer Theory..........................334
                       F.  Other Possible Claims...................................................335
                   X.  Conclusion..................................................................335
                

I. Introduction

Petitioner is currently incarcerated pursuant to his judgments of conviction in two Brooklyn homicide cases — the murder of Andre Booker, Kings County Indictment Number 8457/89, and the murder of Calvert "Bobby" Graham, Kings County Indictment Number 6163/88.

In 1998 petitioner filed in this court separate pro se applications for a writ of habeas corpus in each case. The petition in the Booker murder case was assigned the case number 98-CV-89. The petition in the Graham murder case was assigned the case number 98-CV-281. Because the state trial defense counsel (in part) and respondent were the same in both cases, and the evidence in the state proceedings overlapped, on October 14, 1999 this court ordered these two habeas cases consolidated under one case number, 98-CV-281.

In 1999 this court assigned Harry C. Batchelder, Jr., Esq., and Tracy W Young, Esq., to represent petitioner on his habeas applications. Mr. Batchelder and Ms. Young filed briefs and supporting materials on petitioner's behalf. With funds provided by this court, they investigated petitioner's claims. Mr. Batchelder and Ms. Young also filed papers on petitioner's behalf in state court in an effort to exhaust petitioner's claims. After exhaustion in state court, this court relieved Mr. Batchelder and Ms. Young of their assignment.

On May 16, 2005 petitioner, pro se, filed an amended habeas application in this court. This court appointed Donna R. Newman, Esq., to represent petitioner. Ms. Newman filed a supplemental brief dated September 7, 2005 on petitioner's behalf.

On November 18, 2005, as requested by this court, respondent filed a comprehensive affidavit and brief on both homicides. The present memorandum deals first with the Booker murder and next with the Graham murder.

II. Evidence in Two Murders

A detailed analysis of the evidence in both cases need not now be rehearsed. It is adequately and fairly set forth in respondent's brief of November 18, 2005 at pages 1-29 for the Booker case and pages 137-144 for the Graham case.

III. Briefs in Two Cases

In addition to the various pro se communications from petitioner, and the record and briefs in the state proceedings, this court has relied on respondent's comprehensive brief dated November 18, 2005 with affidavit and extensive appendices; the supplemental brief of petitioner's counsel Donna R. Newman, dated September 7, 2005 (covering primarily the Booker murder, 8457/89, which occurred in Nassau County), which relies in part on a brief prepared by petitioner's former attorneys Harry C. Batchelder, Jr. and Tracy W. Young; a supplemental memorandum of law dated July 16, 1999 and filed on July 26, 1999 by attorneys Batchelder and Young (covering the Graham murder, which occurred in Brooklyn); a pro se memorandum of law filed January 15, 1998 (covering the Graham murder); a second supplemental memorandum of law by attorneys Batchelder and Young dated March 21, 2000 and filed March 24, 2000 (covering the Graham murder); a reply memorandum of law by attorneys Batchelder and Young dated October 8, 1999 and filed October 13, 1999 (covering the Graham murder); affidavits of attorney Newman and others filed by attorneys Batchelder and Young on March 28, 2000 (dealing with the Graham murder); and the pro se habeas corpus proceedings upon the completion of the state appellate process, with extensive exhibits filed May 16, 2005 (dealing with the Graham murder). The briefs were all excellent and useful. All the other documents in the file have been considered.

IV. Hearing

A final evidentiary hearing was conducted in this court on January 24, 2006. Counsel were ordered to produce any state trial or appellate counsel who had evidence bearing on any claim of lack of adequacy of counsel in state court. Issues raised by petitioner in the Graham murder and the Booker murder were explored with the parties. They were free to put on any witnesses and to produce any relevant documents. Petitioner was present by telephone.

Leo Kimmel, Esq., a highly experienced criminal defense attorney, testified. He had represented petitioner in the first Graham murder trial, where the judgment for the people was reversed, and in the Booker case. While his memory of the trial was limited, he was a candid and credible witness.

He was clear on the point that petitioner was aware of, and participated in, the decision not to pursue at trial the scenario of an alternate murderer. It is apparent from his testimony that he used a competent investigator in running down possible leads and in preparing for trial. There is every reason to believe that his decision to eschew the phantom-murderer defense was made after conferring with petitioner and for good strategic reasons. See Part IX.C.9, infra.

Susan Feathers, Esq. was appellate counsel in the Graham murder. She testified by telephone. She was an experienced Legal Aid appellate counsel. Her testimony confirmed the evidence of her fine brief that the direct appeal was well conducted. While her testimony was unnecessary, there was no reason to find her work less than satisfactory. Her strategic decisions on appeal were sound, as indicated in Part IX.E., infra.

Edna Schwartz, Esq. represented petitioner in the Booker murder. She testified that she had a fairly clear...