Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03062/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03062-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gaetano Tom Russo, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents.. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV06-3062-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner Gaetano Tom Russo filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on

December 21, 2006, raising five grounds for habeas relief. Petitioner claimed that his

constitutional rights were violated 1) by the trial court’s refusal to allow counsel to question

prospective jurors; 2) by the trial court’s refusal to strike the entire prospective jury panel

after one prospective juror stated that her husband was a police officer who had been shot

while on duty; 3) by ineffective assistance of counsel; 4) because he has not received the

benefit of recent changes in the law on the burden of proof for self-defense; and 5) by

testimony in an administrative proceedings showing Petitioner’s accuser had committed

perjury. Respondents responded in opposition to the petition on February 28, 2007, and

Petitioner filed a reply on March 28, 2007.

On June 7, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. In the Report and

Recommendation the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner’s first ground, alleging the

violation of his constitutional rights because the trial court unreasonably restricted trial

Case 2:06-cv-03062-SRB Document 11 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

counsel in questioning prospective jurors, was raised exclusively as a state law claim and

decided on a state law basis and is, therefore, not subject to redetermination by the federal

court. On the second ground, the Magistrate Judge found that nothing in the state court

record rebuts the presumption of correctness of the state court’s finding that the jury was

impartial. On the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Magistrate Judge concluded

that counsel’s performance was not deficient. The Magistrate Judge concluded that

Petitioner’s fourth ground that certain 2006 legislative amendments to Arizona’s self-defense

statute were procedurally defaulted but even had they not been because the amendments

applied prospectively only they could not benefit him. Finally, the Magistrate Judge

concluded that the fifth claim was procedurally defaulted. 

Petitioner timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 19,

2007, arguing that on ground one a federal constitutional claim was raised concerning the

limitation on voir dire; on ground two that the trial court record did reflect evidence rebutting

the presumption of correctness of the state court’s finding that the jury was impartial; and

objecting to the Recommendation that his petition be dismissed with prejudice because he

would like an opportunity to re-file his petition should it be dismissed.

In his first objection, Petitioner states that the opening brief filed on his direct appeal

stated that he was alleging both state and federal requirements were violated in voir dire. A

review of the opening brief reflects that that is not the case. The reference to the violation

of both state and federal requirements is a parenthetical summary of the holding in a case

cited on page seven of the opening brief. The argument made by defense counsel on appeal

was made exclusively under state law and decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals

exclusively on state law grounds. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. Petitioner’s

first ground for habeas relief was never fairly presented to the state court as a federal claim

and was not properly exhausted. 

Petitioner objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation on ground two that

nothing in the record rebuts the presumption of correctness of the state court’s finding that

the jury was impartial. Petitioner makes the argument that the comments of the juror who

Case 2:06-cv-03062-SRB Document 11 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

was excused “probably tainted at least one juror.” He asks the court to infer that her

comments inflamed some of the jurors and resulted in the jury panel not being fair and

impartial. However, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s

denial of Petitioner’s counsel’s request that the entire panel be excused noting that nothing

in the transcript at the time of jury selection or otherwise indicated that other jurors were

prejudiced by the excused juror’s remarks and further indicating that the jury was instructed,

both preliminarily and in final instructions, about their obligation to determine the case only

from the evidence presented. On this record, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

the presumption of correctness of the state court’s finding that the jury panel was impartial

has not been rebutted. 

Finally, Petitioner objects to the inclusions of the language of dismissal with prejudice

in any denial of his petition because he may wish to re-file it. Whether his petition is denied

and dismissed with prejudice or simply denied on the merits, Petitioner will not have an

opportunity to re-file his petition. A habeas petitioner may only file one Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus except under those limited circumstances provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s objection to the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

denied and dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 24th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03062-SRB Document 11 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 3