2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-28-2008 

# Gr ant v . W i l son P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-2727

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Gr ant v . W i l s on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1133. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1133NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 06- 2727 DEM ETRI US J . GR AN T, A ppel l ant

v. HAR RY T . WI L S ON, W ar den O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 04- cv- 1904 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e A r t hurJ . Schw ab Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ay22, 2008 B e f o re : S M IT H , F IS H E R , a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: M ay28, 2008) OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . D em etri u s J. G ran t app ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f h is Pe ti ti o n fo r aT he D i s t r i ctC our tas s i gned thi s cas e t o a M agi s t r at e J udge fora r epor tand 1 r ecomm endat i on. T he M agi s t r at e J udge r ecomm ended thatG r ant ’ s Pet i t i on forW r i tof H ab ea s C o rpu s b e d en ied a n d a c erti fica te of ap p ea labili tyb e d en ied. T h e D istri ct C o u rt a d o p ted th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n a s th e o p in io n o f th e C o u rt. T h e se c laim s w e re e x h a u ste d o n d ire c t ap p e a l to th e S u p e rio r C o u rt o f P e n n sy lv a n ia 2 f ro m G ra n t’ s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c in g . T hi s cl ai m w as exhaus t ed byt he Super i orC our tof Penns y l vani a on appe al fr om t he 3 di s m i s s al of G r ant ’ s pet i t i on br oughtpur s uantt o t he Pos tC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct , 42 P a .C .S .A . § § 9 5 4 1

– 9 5 4 6 . 2 W r i tof H abea s C orpus . T hi s C our tgr ant ed a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yon t w o i s s ues 1 onl y : ( 1) w hethert her e w as i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el bynotobj ect i ng t o t he as s er t ed hea r s ayt es t i m onyof K evi n M cK ni ght , St ephen H i t chi ngs and M arvi n Paul ; and 2 ( 2) w hethert her e w as i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el bynotat t empt i ng t o i m peac h t he credibi l i t yof M arvi n P aul byi nq uir i ng w hether , i n ex chan ge fo r hi s t est i m on yagainst appel l ant , he expe ct ed pr efe r ent i al tr eatm enton a cha r ge of a ut om obi l e theftthatw as p e n d in g a g a in st h im a t th e tim e o f a p p e llan t’s tria l. 3 O u r de term ination o f w h ethe r th e state a p p ell ate c o u rt s erred in d en y ing G ran t’ s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s r equi r es us t o r evi ew the s t at e court s ’ appl i cat i on o f S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t to a p a rt ic u la r s e t o f f a c ts . See W

er t s v. V aughn , 228 F. 3d 178, 204 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . H er e, t he s t at e appe l l at e court s di d notappl ya rul e of l aw that contr adi ct s t he Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668 (1 9 8 4 ). S e e W

e rts , 228 F. 3d at204 . A s such, w e fi nd that the st at e app el l at e cou rt s’ decis i on s w ere notcon t raryt o est abli shed S up rem e C ou rtpreceden t . H ow ever, w e m ustT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s m att erpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 2241 4 and 2254. W e exe r ci s e appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253. G r antw as al s o convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng the U ni form Fi r earm s A ct : Fi r earm s N ott o be 5 C a rr ie d W ith o u t a L ic e n s e . 1 8 P a .C .S .A . § 6 1 0 6 . 3 al s o anal y ze G r ant ’ s i neff ect i venes s cl ai m underthe “unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on” pr ovi s i on of 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) ( 1) . “U nderthatpr ovi s i on, the appr opr i at e i nqui r yi s w hethert he Penns y l vani a court s ’ appl i cat i on of Str i ckland t o [G r ant ’ s ] i neff ect i venes s cl ai m w as o b je c tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le , i . e. , t he s t at e courtdeci s i on, eval uat ed obj ect i vel yand on the m erit s, resu lt ed in an o u tcom e tha t can n o t r ea so n ab lyb e jus ti fied u n d er Str i ckland . ” Id . W h il e o u r discu ssion o f th e c lai m s is som ew h at diff ere n t th an that o f th e state c o u rt s’, “[ w ]e f ind that u n d er the fa cts o f th e c ase , the P en n sy lvan ia S u p erior C o u rt ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t trial c o u n se l re n d e re d e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e w a s n o t an u n re a so n a b le appl i cat i on of Str i ckland . ” Id . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt. 4I n 1994, G r antw as convi ct ed bya j uryon s epar at e count s of aggr avat ed as s aul tfor t he s hoot i ng of tw o m en— D uncan Pl ow den and M arvi n Paul . T he tr i al cour ts ent ence d 5 h im to an ag g reg ate term o f in ca rce rati o n o f n o t l ess th an tw en ty -tw o -an d -a-h alf n o r m o re t han fort y - fi ve y ear s . T es t i m onyatt r i al r evea l ed the fol l ow i ng fac t s s urr oundi ng the s h o o tin g s . P a u l a n d P lo w d e n w e re e n g a g e d in a c o n v e rs a tio n w h e n a m a n a p p ro a c h e d . A ft ert hi s m an gr eet ed Pl ow den, Paul began t o w al k aw ay . A ft ert aki ng abouts i x or s even s t eps , Paul hear d t he man sa yt o Pl ow den, “W hat ’ s thats hi ty ou been s ay i ng about4

me . ” P a u l t h e n h e a r d a b a n g a n d l o o k e d b a c k t o s e e P l o wd e n f a l l i n g t o th e g r o u n d . He sa w th e m a n h o ld in g a b lac k g u n in h is h a n d . P a u l atte m p ted to ru n , b u t th e m a n sh o t h im i n t he r i ghtbut t ock. A s Paul w as l y i ng i n t he s t r eet , the man shothi m a s econd t i m e. T he m a n a ttem p ted to sh o o t P a u l a th ird tim e , b u t th e g u n d id n o t g o o f f. A t trial, the o n ly d ire c t ev id e n c e im p lica tin g G ra n t as th e sh o o terw a s P a u l’s in -c o u rt id e n tific a tio n o f h im as t he s hoot er , an i dent i fi cat i on Paul pr evi ous l ym ade f r om a phot o arr ays hor t l yaft ert he s hoot i ng. Pl ow den, bycontr as t , t es t i fi ed thathe di d notknow w ho s hothi m and he re f u se d to im p lica te G ra n t. T h e p ro se c u to r’s p rin c ip a l th e o ryw a s th a t th e ju rysh o u ld b e liev e P a u l an d n o t P lo w d e n . In a d d iti o n , the trial c o u rt a llo w e d th re e w itn e ss e s to tes tifyth a t P lo w d e n h a d to ld th e m o u t o f c o u rt th a t G ra n t w a s in d e e d th e sh o o ter , all w i t houtobj ect i on fr om G r ant ’ s couns el . T her e w as no phy s i cal orot herdi r ectevi dence lin k in g G ra n t to th e c ri m e . G r antas s er t s t hatt r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o obj ectt o t he thr ee w i t nes s es ’ t es t i m onyr egar di ng Pl ow den’ s al l eged out - of- cour ts t at ement s thatG r antw as th e s h o o te r. W e ta k e e a c h w itn e s s ’s te s tim o n yin tu rn . K evi n M cK ni ght , Pl ow den’ s par ol e off i cer , t es t i fi ed thatPl ow den t ol d hi m that G r antw as t he s hoot er . T hi s t es t i m onycontr adi ct ed Pl ow den’ s i m m edi at el ypr ece di ng t es t i m onyt hathe di d notknow w hetheri tw as G r antw ho s hothi m . O n di r ectappea l , t he S u p e r i o rC o u r to f

P e n n s yl v a n i a s t a t e d th a t , “ A l t h o u g h th i s s t a t e m e n tq u a l i f i e d a s h e a r s a y, couns el w as noti neff

ect i ve fornotobj ect i ng beca us e ther e w as neveranydi s put e thatA s s t at ed i n t he i m m edi at el ypr ece di ng par agr aph, the D i s t r i ctC our tgave a l i m i t i ng 6 i ns t ruct i on fol l ow i ng t he t es t i m onyof par ol e off i cerM cK ni ghtand D et ect i ve C i gani k, caut i oni ng t hatt hei rt es t i m onyof the pr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ementw as onl yt o be cons i der ed t o hel p t he j ur yt o j udge the cr edi bi l i t yand w ei ghtof the t es t i m onygi ven by P lo w d e n a t tr ia l. T h is in s tru c tio n w a s re p e a te d a f te r c lo s in g a rg u m e n ts . 5 P lo w d e n h a d b e e n sh o t. T h u s, th e re w a s n o p re ju d ice re su lti n g f

ro m th e f a ilu re to o b jec t.” T h is e x p lan a tio n m iss e s th e m a rk . C o u n se l w a s n o t in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to o b je c t b e c a u s e th e te s tim o n yw a s n o t h e a rs a y ; it w a s im p e a c h m e n t te s tim o n y . See Pa. R . E . , R ul e 613; Pa. R . E . , R ul e 607 . T he tr i al cour tgave a caut i onaryi ns t ruct i on fol l ow i ng M cK ni ghtand D et ect i ve C i gani k’ s t es t i m ony , expl ai ni ng thatthei rt es t i m ony w as admi t t ed fort he s ol e purpos e of he l pi ng the j ur or s as s es s the cr edi bi l i t yand w ei ght o f th e tes tim o n yp re v io u slyg iv e n b yP lo w d e n . T h e c o u rt in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t itc o u ld notr egar d t he evi dence of the ea r l i eri ncons i s t ents t at ementas pr oof of the truth of anyt hi ng t hatw as s ai d i n t he s t at ement . T hi s i ns t ruct i on w as r epea t ed atthe cl os e of evi dence . T hus , couns el ’ s per form ance di d notfal l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of re a s o n a b le n e s s f

o r f a ilu re to o b

je c t. See Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 8 . C ityo f P itt sb u rg h P o lice D e tec tiv e S tep h e n H itch in g s te stif ied th a t h e g o t a c a ll f ro m a n o th e r p o lice d e tec tiv e , G e o rg e C ig a n ik , w h o a d v ise d H itch in g s th a t K e v in M cK ni ghtt ol d C i gani k t hatPl ow den had i dent i fi ed G r antas the s hoot er . D et ect i ve 6 Hi t c h i n g s t h e n a s s e mb l e d a s i x - p h o t o g r a p h a r r a ywh i c h i n c l u d e d Gr a n t ’ s p i c tu r e . He s how ed thes e phot os t o Paul i n hi s hos pi t al r oom , and Paul pos i t i vel yi dent i fi ed G r antas t he p ers on w ho shot hi m . O n d i rectapp eal , the S up eri or C ou rtdeterm i ned that H i t chings’6

t es t i m onyfal l s w i t hi n t he cour s e of pol i ce c onductexce pt i on t o t he hea r s ayrul e and a s s uch, t r i al couns el cannotbe dee m ed i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o obj ect . T he pol i ce c onduct rule is no t a rule o f a u tom ati c a d m issi b il ity . Instea d , if d ef en se c o u n sel o b

jects, the c o u rt “mustbal ance t he pr os ecut i on’ s need f orthe s t at ement s agai ns tanypr ej udi ce a r i s i ng t her efr om . ” C om m onw eal th v. Jones , 658 A . 2d 746, 751 ( Pa. 1995) . O urC our thas caut i oned aga i ns tt he admi s s i bi l i t yof thes e out - of- cour ts t at ement s w hen i ti s s how n t hat a d d itio n a l b a c k g ro u n d is u n n e c e s s a ry. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Sal l i ns , 993 F. 2d 344, 347 ( 3d C i r. 19 93 ). H ow ever, even i f w e determ i ned that G rantproved the reasonab l eness co m p o n en t un d er Str i ckland , G r antm us ts how thathe w as actual l ypr ej udi ced by c o u n se l’s d e f

icie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e . B e c a u se M c K n ig h t an d C ig a n ik h a d a lre a d ytes tifie d to t he s ame fact s , al bei ts ubj ectt o a l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on, G r antcannots how pr ej udi ce re su lti n g f

ro m th e f a ilu re to o b

jec t to D e tec tiv e H itch in g s’ te stim o n y . A s s u c h , the sta te co u rtd ec isi o n resu lt ed in an o u tcom e tha t can b e re aso n ab lyjusti fied u n d er Str i ckland . Fi nal l y , Paul t es t i fi ed thatPl ow den t ol d hi m thatG r antw as the s hoot erdur i ng a conver s at i on t heyhad att he hos pi t al s om e w eeks aft erthe s hoot i ng. A s the Super i or C o u rt re c o g n ize d , this sta tem e n t w a s h e a rsa y . T h e C o u rt sta ted th a t “[ t]h e a f o re sa id c o n v e rs a tio n to o k p la c e a f te r P a u l a lr e a d yid e n tif

ie d a p p e lla n t f

ro m th e p h o to g ra p h s . T hus , Paul ’ s i dent i fi cat i on w as noti nfl uence d bythe conve r s at i on and the hea r s ay sta tem e n t, th e re f

o re , ca u se d n o a p p re c iab le p re ju d ice w h e n c o m p a re d to th e c o n sid e ra b le ev iden ce o f a p p ell an t’ s g u il t. ” T h e e ff ec t of P low d en ’s st atem en t on P au l’ s7

i dent i fi cat i on, how ever , i s bes i des t he poi nt ; w hatm at t er s i s the ef fec tof Paul ’ s hear s ay t est i m on yon t he jury . A gain, even i f w e determ i ned that G rantproved the reasonab l eness co m p o n en t un d er Str i ckland , w e d o n o t b e lie v e th e p re ju d ic e c o m p o n e n t h a s b e e n m e t. A s s uch, w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatt he Super i orC ourtj udgm entr es ul t ed i n an out come t hatcan b e re aso n ab lyjusti fied u n d er Str i ckland . E ven i f the hea r s ays t at ement s had bee n obj ect ed t o and exc l uded, ther e w as i ndepende ntevi dence of G r ant ’ s gui l t . Paul t es t i fi ed i n gr eatdet ai l aboutbei ng s hotby G r antatcl os e r ange. Paul al s o t es t i fi ed t o w i t nes s i ng G r ants hoot i ng Pl ow den i m m edi at el ypr i or . Paul fur t hert es t i fi ed t o m aki ng an out - of- cour ti dent i fi cat i on of G r ant as t he s hoot ers hor t l yaft ert he i nci dent . T hatt es t i m ony , coupl ed w i t h t hatof D et ect i ve Hi t c h i n g s , wh i c h c o n f

i r me d P a u l ’ s p r i o ru n e q u i v o c a l s e l e c t i o n o f Gr a n t ’ s p i c tu r e f

r o m a six -p h o to g ra p h a rra y , p ro v id e d stro n g e v id e n c e o f G ra n t’s g u ilt . G r antal s o cl ai m s t hatt r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve fornotat t empt i ng t o i m peac h th e c re d ib ili tyo f

M a rv in P a u l w ith a n in q u irya b o u t w h e th e r, in e x c h a n g e f o r h is tes tim o n ya g a in st a p p e llan t, he e x p e c ted p re f e re n tial tre a tm e n t o n a c h a rg e o f a u to m o b ile t heftt hatw as pendi ng agai ns thi m atthe t i m e of a ppel l ant ’ s tr i al . Paul w as arr es t ed and char ged w i t h aut o t hefti n M ar ch 2004, s om e t en mont hs aft erhe i dent i fi ed G r antas t he sh o o ter f ro m a p h o to a rra y . T h e S u p e rio r C o u rt d e c id e d th a t th is c laim lac k e d m e rit b e c a u se P a u l h a d a lre a d yid e n tifie d G ra n t as th e sh o o ter b e f o re h e w a s c h a rg e d w ith a u to t heft“s o t her e w as no r eas on forPaul t o acc us e [G r ant ] fal s el yi n t he hope of gai ni ng8

favorw i t h pol i ce. ” I ti s t rue, how ever , thatw hetherPaul had a mot i ve fort es t i fy i ng agai ns tG r anti s di s t i nctfr om hi s i ni t i al i dent i fi cat i on. N evert hel es s , the evi dence of Paul ’ s i dent i fi cat i on i s compel l i ng. E i ghtday s aft erthe s hoot i ng, pr i ort o anycr i m i nal char ges fi l ed aga i ns tPaul , he i dent i fi ed G r antas the s hoot er . T he tr i al tr ans cr i pt es t abl i s hes t hatPaul , fr om hi s hos pi t al bed, pos i t i vel yi dent i fi ed G r antatthe t i m e of the sh o o tin g , n e a rlya y e a r b e f o re th e a u to th e f

t ch a rg e s w e re b ro u g h t ag a in st h im . N o t o n ly di d Paul t es t i fythat , att he t i m e he i dent i fi ed G r antas the s hoot erfr om the phot o arr ay , he w as “one hundr ed per cent ” ce r t ai n G r antw as r es pons i bl e forthe s hoot i ng, butD et ect i ve Hi t c h i n g s a l s o t e s t i f

i e d t h a tP a u l i n d i c a t e d h e wa s “ [ o n e ] h u n d r e d p e r c e n tp o s i t i v e . ” As t he Super i orC our tnot ed, att he t i m e w hen Paul i m pl i cat ed G r antand i dent i fi ed hi m as th e s h o o te r, t h e re w e re n o c h a rg e s a g a in s t h im . T he Super i orC our texpl ai ned that“[w ] hen the pr ej udi ce pr ong of the t es tfor f in d in g in e f

f e c tiv e n e s s f

a ils , th e c la im m a yb e d is m is s e d . See Com m onw eal th v. Thom as , 7 8 3 A .2 d 3 2 8 (P a . S u p e r. 2 0 0 1 ) (w h e re v ictim p o sitiv e lyid e n tifie d d e f e n d a n t p rio r to v ict im ’s arrest fo r un related ch arg es, claim that v ict im ’s t esti m o n yw as g iven to cu rry fa v o r w ith the p rose cu ti o n h as n o m eritan d d o es n o t est ab li sh p rejud ice). ” T h e C o u rt found that , i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al , G r antcoul d notes t abl i s h pr ej udi ce forcouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o cr os s - exami ne Paul abouthi s theftchar ge. W hi l e w e r eal i ze that Paul ’ s t es t i m onyw as t he onl ydi r ectevi dence l i nki ng G r antt o t he cr i m es , i n l i ghtof the pr evi ous out - of- cour ti dent i fi cat i on, w hi ch w as corr obor at ed byD et ect i ve H i t chi ngs9

t es t i m ony , as w el l as t he s t r ength of Paul ’ s i n- cour tt es t i m ony , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe s t at e court ’ s appl i cat i on of Str i ckland to G ra n t’s in e f f e c tiv e n e ss c laim w a s n o t o b jec tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .