Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_09-cv-08004/USCOURTS-alnd-2_09-cv-08004-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Peter Christian Boulette
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PETER CHRISTIAN BOULETTE )

)

vs. ) Case No. 2:09-cv-08004-RDP-HGD

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

O R D E R

On April 2, 2010, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation was

entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file

objections to the recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. On April 16, 2010,

Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

After careful consideration ofthe record in this case and the Magistrate Judge’s

thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, along with Petitioner’s 1

The court simply offers one additional point not mentioned by the Magistrate Judge in his 1

comprehensive Report and Recommendation. During the Government’s case in chief, Guy Warren

testified about discussions he had with Victoria Thompson on the night Warren conducted the search

at issue here. Petitioner contends that Warren’s testimony about Thompson’s statements was

hearsay, and that his trial counsel was deficient when he failed to assert a hearsay objection. 

However, to the extent that the testimony regarding Thompson’s statements was offered to explain

what effect they had on Warren (i.e., why he only searched part of the apartment), the statements

were offered not for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show their effect on the listener

(Warren). Thus, the statements – to the extent offered for that limited purpose – were not hearsay. 

Moreover, Petitioner also complains that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient

because he called Thompson to testify at trial. He argues that if Thompson had not been called as

a witness, her statements to Warren would not have been admitted through Warren’s testimony. 

However, even if Thompson had not been called to testify, Warren’s testimony about Thompson’s

statements – if offered for a non-hearsay purpose – could have been used to explain why Warren

limited the scope of the search to the master bedroom.

FILED

 2010 Apr-23 PM 01:22

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:09-cv-08004-RDP-HGD Document 11 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 2
objections thereto, the court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge. 

The court further ACCEPTS the Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and it

is therefore 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Motion to Vacate, Set

Aside or Correct Sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, is due to be and is

hereby DENIED and this action DISMISSED.

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of April, 2010.

___________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Of course, the point became moot when Thompson testified in Defendant’s case that she and

Petitioner resided in the second bedroom, not the one that was searched. At that point, the

Government would have been able to elicit from Warren testimony about Thompson’s statements

that night to show that Thompson had made prior inconsistent statements. Petitioner’s trial counsel’s

failure to object on hearsay grounds to this testimony simply is not a Strickland violation.

2

Case 2:09-cv-08004-RDP-HGD Document 11 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 2