IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 

 ) 

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Cr. I.D. No. 9904019326 

 ) 

LUIS G. CABRERA, JR., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

Final submission: June 10, 2015 

Decision: June 17, 2015 

Upon Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief

GRANTED in part; DENIED in part.

OPINION

Thomas C. Grimm, Esquire, Rodger D. Smith II, Esquire, Ethan H. Townsend, 

Esquire, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys 

for Defendant. 

Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Esquire, and Maria T. Knoll, Esquire, Department of 

Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for the State of Delaware. 

Rocanelli, J. 
1

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 The bodies of Brandon Saunders and Vaughn Rowe were discovered in a 

wooded area of Rockford Park in Wilmington, Delaware on January 21, 1996 

(“Rockford Park Murders”). Nearly four years later, on December 6, 1999, Luis 

Cabrera (“Cabrera”) and Luis Reyes (“Reyes”) were indicted as co-defendants for 

the Rockford Park Murders.1 The State sought the death penalty for both Cabrera 

and Reyes. Counsel was appointed for both defendants.2 The trials of Cabrera and 

Reyes were severed by the Trial Court.3

 

A. Rockford Park Trial and Direct Appeal 

Cabrera was tried first (“Rockford Park Trial”), with jury selection starting 

on January 9, 2001. Jury deliberations began on February 8, 2001, and the jury 

returned a verdict on February 11, 2001, finding Cabrera guilty of two counts of 

First Degree Murder, two counts of Conspiracy in the First Degree, and other 

offenses. 

The penalty phase began on February 13, 2001 and ended on February 15, 

2001. The jury recommended that Cabrera receive the death sentence for each of 

 

1

 At the time they were indicted for the murders of Rowe and Saunders, Cabrera and Reyes were 

serving sentences imposed for the January 1995 murder of Funador Otero. Cabrera was serving 

a life sentence for Murder First Degree. Reyes was serving a 13-year sentence for Murder 

Second Degree. 

2

 “Cabrera Trial Counsel” was John P. Deckers, Esquire and Anthony A. Figliola, Esquire. 

Cabrera Trial Counsel also represented Cabrera on direct appeal. 

3

 The “Trial Court” references the presiding judge to whom this case was assigned until May 

2013. 
2

the Rockford Park Murders by a vote of 11–1. The Court postponed Cabrera’s 

sentencing until the completion of Reyes’ trial for the Rockford Park Murders. 

Reyes was convicted on October 19, 2001, and, on October 26, 2001, the jury 

recommended that Reyes receive the death sentence for each of the Rockford Park 

Murders by a vote of 9–3. By decision and Order dated March 14, 2002, the Trial 

Court sentenced both Cabrera and Reyes to death.4 

An automatic, direct appeal was filed with the Delaware Supreme Court.5 

While the direct appeal was pending, on July 9, 2002, Cabrera filed a motion for a 

new trial based on claims of discovery of new evidence. The direct appeal was 

stayed pending the Trial Court’s consideration of the motion for a new trial. On 

December 19, 2002, the Trial Court held a hearing regarding the admissibility of 

newly discovered evidence in support of Cabrera’s motion for a new trial. On 

April 3, 2003, the Trial Court ruled that the newly discovered evidence was 

inadmissible. Consequently, the Trial Court denied Cabrera’s motion for a new 

trial.6 The Supreme Court lifted the stay on Cabrera’s direct appeal and, on 

 

4

State v. Cabrera (Cabrera Sentencing), 2002 WL 484641, at *5–8 (Del. Super. Mar. 14, 2002). 

5

See 11 Del. C. § 4209(g) (“Whenever the death penalty is imposed, and upon the judgment 

becoming final in the trial court, the recommendation on and imposition of that penalty shall be 

reviewed on the record by the Delaware Supreme Court.”); Cabrera’s direct appeal to the 

Delaware Supreme Court was filed on March 21, 2002.

6

State v. Cabrera (Cabrera Motion for New Trial), 2003 WL 25763727 (Del. Super. Apr. 3, 

2003). 
3

January 27, 2004, affirmed Cabrera’s convictions and death sentences.7 On 

February 24, 2004, the Trial Court set Cabrera’s execution date for June 4, 2004. 

B. Appointment of Rule 61 Counsel and Postconviction Motions 

By letter dated March 8, 2004, Cabrera notified the Trial Court that Cabrera 

intended to pursue postconviction relief and requested appointment of counsel. 

The Trial Court appointed counsel to represent Cabrera in the postconviction 

proceedings (“Rule 61 Counsel”).8 On April 20, 2004, Cabrera’s Rule 61 Counsel 

filed a motion to stay execution. The Trial Court granted the motion to stay 

execution on April 27, 2004. Cabrera’s Rule 61 motion filed in November 2004—

amended in 2007, in 2012, and as briefed in 2014–2015—is now pending before 

this Court for decision.9

 

7 Cabrera v. State (Cabrera Direct Appeal), 840 A.2d 1256, 1259 (Del. 2004).

8

 Various lawyers have been appointed as Rule 61 Counsel since 2004: first, Christopher D. 

Tease, Esquire and Michael Heyden, Esquire; second, Christopher D. Tease, Esquire and Kevin 

J. O’Connell, Esquire; third, Christopher D. Tease, Esquire and Jim Haley, Esquire; fourth, 

Christopher D. Tease, Esquire, Thomas C. Grimm, Esquire and Rodger D. Smith II, Esquire. In 

the meantime, Mr. Tease is not practicing law. See In re Tease, 105 A.3d 990 (Del. Nov. 20, 

2014) (TABLE). 

9

 On November 30, 2004, Cabrera filed his first motion for postconviction relief. On March 19, 

2007, Cabrera filed an amended motion for postconviction relief. On January 18, 2007, Cabrera 

filed a motion for leave to contact jurors from the Rockford Park Trial, which the Trial Court 

denied on August 7, 2008. State v. Cabrera (Cabrera Motion for Leave to Interview Jurors), 

984 A.2d 149 (Del. Super. 2008). On January 22, 2008, Cabrera filed a motion for leave to 

conduct discovery in furtherance of the motion postconviction relief, which the Trial Court 

denied on August 14, 2008. State v. Cabrera (Cabrera Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery), 

2008 WL 3853998 (Del. Super. Aug. 14, 2008). On October 4, 2012, Cabrera filed a second 

amended motion for postconviction relief. The Trial Court held evidentiary hearings in October 

2012 and on April 1, 2013. See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h)(1). The presiding judge retired from 

the Superior Court in May 2013. The matter was reassigned by then-President Judge Vaughn in 

September 2013. Cabrera filed a post-evidentiary hearing brief on April 14, 2014. The State 

filed a response on July 15, 2014. Cabrera replied on October 3, 2014. Transcripts were 
4

II. CONSIDERATION OF PROCEDURAL BARS

 Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 governs Cabrera’s motion for 

postconviction relief.10 Postconviction relief is a “collateral remedy which 

provides an avenue for upsetting judgments that otherwise have become final.”11 

To ensure the finality of criminal convictions, the Court must consider the 

procedural requirements for relief set out under Rule 61(i) before addressing the 

merits of the motion.12

 

 Rule 61(i)(1) bars a motion for postconviction relief if it is filed more than 

three years from the final judgment; this bar is not applicable as Cabrera’s first 

postconviction motion was filed in a timely manner.13 Rule 61(i)(2) bars 

successive postconviction motions;14 this bar is not applicable as Cabrera has not 

filed successive postconviction motions. Rule 61(i)(3) bars relief if the motion 

includes claims not asserted in prior proceedings leading to the final judgment; this 

bar will be addressed in the discussion of the claims to which it applies. Rule 

61(i)(4) bars relief if the motion includes grounds for relief formerly adjudicated in 

 

obtained on February 7, 2015, and this Court heard oral argument on May 27, 2015. The parties 

submitted supplemental argument and the record was closed on June 10, 2015. 

10 Super. Ct. Crim. Rule 61 has since been amended. All references to Rule 61 refer to the 

version of the Rule in place in 2004, when Cabrera filed his motion for postconviction relief. 

11 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 745 (Del. 1990). 

12 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 

13 Rule 61(i)(1) (barring a motion for postconviction relief unless filed within three years after 

the judgment of conviction is final); Bailey v. State, 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (Del. 1991). 

14 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2) (barring successive postconviction motions if the motion it 

includes grounds for relief not asserted in a prior postconviction proceeding). 
5

any proceeding leading to the judgment of conviction, in an appeal, or in a 

postconviction proceeding; this bar will be addressed in the discussion of the 

claims to which it applies. 

 The procedural bars to postconviction relief under Rule 61(i)(3)15 can be 

overcome if the motion asserts a colorable claim that there has been a “miscarriage 

of justice” as the result of a constitutional violation that undermined the 

fundamental fairness of the proceedings.16 Likewise, the procedural bar under 

Rule 61(i)(4)17 can be overcome if consideration of the claim on its merits is 

warranted in the “interest of justice.” If the postconviction motion is procedurally 

barred and neither exception applies, the Court should dispose of the motion 

because postconviction relief is not “a substitute for direct appeal.”18 

Cabrera’s postconviction motion asserts multiple claims of constitutional 

violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Delaware 

Supreme Court has declined to hear claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on 

direct appeal and, therefore, the first opportunity for Cabrera to assert such claims 

is in an application for postconviction relief.19

 

 

15 This exception is also applicable to procedural bars to postconviction relief under Rule 61 

(i)(1) and (2), but those bars are not relevant here. 

16 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). See also Younger, 580 A.2d at 555; State v. Wilson, 2005 WL 

3006781, at *1 n. 6 (Del. Super. Nov. 8, 2005).

17 This exception is also applicable to procedural bars to postconviction relief under Rule 61 

(i)(2), but that bar is not relevant here. 

18 Flamer, 585 A.2d at 745. 

19 Id. at 753; State v. Gattis, 1995 WL 790961, at *3 (Del. Super. Dec. 28, 1995). 
6

III. THE STANDARD FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Cabrera claims that Cabrera Trial Counsel provided ineffective legal 

assistance in violation of Cabrera’s rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, § 7 of the Delaware 

Constitution. The standard used to evaluate claims of ineffective counsel is the 

two-prong test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. 

Washington,

20 as adopted in Delaware.21 The movant must show that (1) trial 

counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and 

(2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel's unprofessional 

errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.22 Failure to prove 

either prong will render the claim insufficient.23 Moreover, the Court shall dismiss 

entirely conclusory allegations of ineffective counsel.24 The movant must provide 

concrete allegations of prejudice, including specifying the nature of the prejudice 

and the adverse affects actually suffered.25

 

With respect to the first prong—the performance prong—the movant must 

overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was professionally 

 

20 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

21 See Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988). 

22 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. 

23 Id. at 688; Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996).

24 Younger, 580 A.2d at 555; Jordan v. State, 1994 WL 466142, at *1 (Del. Aug. 25, 1994). 

25 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692; Dawson, 673 A.2d at 1196. 
7

reasonable.26 The Court’s scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly 

deferential and “every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of 

hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to 

evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at that time.”27 To satisfy the 

performance prong, Cabrera must assert specific allegations to establish Cabrera 

Trial Counsel acted unreasonably as viewed against “prevailing professional 

norms.”28

 

With respect to the second prong—the prejudice prong—the question for the 

Court is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the Trial 

Court “would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating 

circumstances did not warrant death.”29 In considering the prejudice prong, this 

Court must “consider all the relevant evidence that the [Trial Court] would have 

had before [him] if [counsel] had pursued a different path.”30 To satisfy the 

prejudice prong, Cabrera must establish the existence of a substantial likelihood, 

not a mere conceivable likelihood, of a different result of the proceedings absent 

Cabrera Trial Counsel’s errors.31

 

 

26 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88. 

27 Id. at 689. 

28 Id. at 688; Wright v. State (Wright 1996), 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996) (“Mere allegations 

of ineffectiveness will not suffice.”). 

29 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695. 

30 Taylor v. State (Taylor 2011), 32 A.3d 374, 382 (Del. 2011) (alteration in original) (internal 

quotation omitted). 

31 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 840, 852 (Del. 2013). 
8

IV. CABRERA TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE 

WITH RESPECT TO MITIGATION 

 This Court will consider the merits of procedurally sufficient constitutional 

claims as well as any colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Cabrera’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to the presentation 

made during the penalty phase regarding mitigation will be addressed on the 

merits. 

A. Cabrera Claims that Mitigation Investigation was Inadequate 

Specifically, with respect to mitigation, Cabrera contends Cabrera Trial 

Counsel was ineffective for focusing on the guilt phase, rather than the penalty 

phase; by improperly relying on the mitigation investigation conducted previously 

for the Otero Trial; and for ignoring “red flags” uncovered in connection with the 

Otero Trial and the Rockford Park Trial. The State’s argument does not focus on 

the sufficiency of Cabrera Trial Counsel’s mitigation investigation. Instead, the 

State disagrees that a more extensive mitigation investigation would have revealed 

a history of childhood abuse and neglect. The State classifies Cabrera’s upbringing 

as “common-place” and argues that childhood issues such as sibling rivalry and the 

lifestyle of Cabrera’s father are “everyday occurrences in one’s childhood” rather 

than “‘red flags’ of abuse missed by [Cabrera Trial Counsel].”32

 

32 State’s Resp. 57–58 (July 15, 2014). 
9

Cabrera argues that Cabrera Trial Counsel was ineffective with respect to its 

mitigation investigation and its preparation of a defense for the penalty phase of 

the Rockford Park Trial. According to Cabrera, Cabrera Trial Counsel failed to 

locate and interview at least a dozen witnesses who could have provided 

background information on Cabrera to develop a mitigation strategy. Cabrera 

argues that Cabrera Trial Counsel failed to obtain his school, military, and hospital 

records; failed to retain a mitigation specialist; and never prepared a 

comprehensive social history for Cabrera’s penalty phase defense. Cabrera 

contends that a proper investigation would have uncovered a history of child abuse 

and neglect; there is a reasonably probability that the jury would not have voted 

11–1 to recommend the death penalty if a proper mitigation case had been 

presented; and, accordingly, Cabrera would not have been sentenced to death by 

the Trial Court. 

B. The Standard for Mitigation in a Capital Case 

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that defense counsel in a 

capital case is “obligat[ed] to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant’s 

background.”33 In 1989, the American Bar Association promulgated guidelines for 

defense attorneys in capital cases (“ABA Guidelines”).34 With respect to 

 

33 Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396 (2000). 

34 See Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases

(1989) (hereinafter ABA Guidelines). 
10

conducting a mitigation investigation, Section 11.4.1 of the ABA Guidelines 

provides: 

A. Counsel should conduct independent investigations relating to 

the guilt/innocence phase and to the penalty phase of a capital trial. 

Both investigations should begin immediately upon counsel's entry 

into the case and should be pursued expeditiously. 

B. The investigation for preparation of the guilt/innocence phase 

of the trial should be conducted regardless of any admission or 

statement by the client concerning facts constituting guilt. 

C. The investigation for preparation of the sentencing phase 

should be conducted regardless of any initial assertion by the client 

that mitigation is not to be offered. This investigation should comprise 

efforts to discover all reasonably available mitigating evidence and 

evidence to rebut any aggravating evidence that may be introduced by 

the prosecutor. 

According to the introductory paragraph of the ABA Guidelines, the 

guidelines serve to “enumerate the minimal resources and practices necessary to 

provide effective assistance of counsel.” The ABA Guidelines delineate the 

prevailing professional norms for defense counsel in capital cases.35 Failure to 

follow the guidelines is not tantamount to ineffective assistance of counsel per se,

36

but the ABA Guidelines do set a standard for evaluation of Cabrera Trial Counsel’s 

conduct regarding its mitigation investigation.37 

 

35 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. 

36 State v. Taylor, 2010 WL 3511272, at *17 (Del. Super. Aug. 6, 2010) (“Neither the United 

States Supreme Court nor the Delaware Supreme Court has held that failure to meet the ABA 

Guidelines in legally tantamount to ineffective assistance of counsel.”). 

37 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 (“Prevailing norms of practice as reflected in the [ABA 

Guidelines] and the like . . . are guides to determining what is reasonable.”). 
11

The ABA Guidelines comment that defense counsel’s “duty to investigate it 

not negated by the expressed desires of a client. Nor may [defense] counsel sit idly 

by, thinking that the investigation would be futile. The attorney must first evaluate 

the potential avenues of action and then advise the client on the merits of each.”38

 

C. Cabrera Counsel Was Well Aware that a Mitigation Expert Should Have 

Been Retained and, Indeed, Planned to Hire an Expert But Did Not Do So 

Cabrera Trial Counsel testified at the postconviction hearing that they did 

not hire a mitigation specialist for the Rockford Park Trial because that was not the 

prevailing professional norm in 2001.39 Instead, Cabrera Trial Counsel maintains 

that Mr. Carl Kent (“Defense Investigator”) conducted an investigation into 

Cabrera’s background and that this investigation was sufficient.40 

Cabrera Trial Counsel Deckers represented Cabrera at the Rockford Park 

Trial while contemporaneously representing Jack Outten, another client in an 

unrelated criminal case, in a postconviction proceeding. With respect to the Outten 

matter, Deckers argued that Figliolia (coincidentally Decker’s co-counsel in the 

Rockford Park Trial) was ineffective as counsel for Outten because Figliola failed 

to conduct a proper mitigation investigation in accordance with the ABA 

Guidelines. In support of the postconviction case in Outten, Deckers submitted an 

expert report, stating in relevant part: 

 

38 ABA Guidelines, supra note 34, § 11.4.1, cmt. (internal quotation omitted). 

39 Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/23/2012 at 83:5–23. 

40 Id. at 73:22–74:1. 
12

[P]reparing a thorough mitigation case is the single most important 

thing an attorney can do in a death-penalty case, short of convincing 

the prosecutor not to seek death in the first instance. An inadequate 

investigation is almost a certain prescription for death.41

 

The Court cannot reconcile Cabrera Trial Counsel’s postconviction hearing 

testimony that, despite Cabrera Trial Counsel’s direct involvement in the Outten

case, they were unaware of the 1989 ABA Guidelines and the importance of 

mitigation experts.42 

Moreover, the mitigation specialist used for the postconviction proceedings 

in the Outten case is the same mitigation specialist Cabrera Trial Counsel noted 

should be hired for Cabrera’s case, but was not retained. Indeed, Cabrera Trial 

Counsel’s files include at least three separate notes hand-written by Cabrera Trial 

Counsel indicating that a mitigation specialist should be hired for Cabrera.43 In 

fact, one of the notes specifically identifies the name of a mitigation specialist, 

which was the same mitigation specialist Deckers was contemporaneously relying 

upon in the Outten case.

44 Accordingly, Cabrera Trial Counsel were aware that 

 

41 Expert Report Re: Outten Mitigation (July 19, 2000), Cabrera Ex. 77 at 0698.

42 Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/23/2012 at 83:3–84:1–11. 

43 See Cabrera To Do List, Cabrera Ex. 23 at 0095 (Deckers wrote: “meet with Tony to discuss . . 

. mit[igation] specialist.”); Notes (Apr. 7, 2000), Cabrera Ex. 24 at 0097 (Deckers wrote: “we 

need to hire . . . mitigation specialist.”); Notes (Oct. 24, 2000), Cabrera Ex. 27 at 0107 

(“Mitigation Specialist – Lori James-Monroe.”). 

44 Notes (Oct. 24, 2000), Cabrera Ex. 27 at 0107 (“Mitigation Specialist – Lori James-Monroe.”). 
13

prevailing professional norms required a mitigation specialist and they had 

specifically considered retaining such an expert.45

 

D. Cabrera Trial Counsel Concedes Focus on Guilt Phase to the Exclusion of 

Penalty Phase 

Cabrera Trial Counsel denies the allegations of ineffective assistance of 

counsel, stating, “[Cabrera Trial] Counsel believes that the presentation of the 

mitigation evidence was adequate and consistent with Cabrera’s instructions for 

the penalty hearing . . . . [Cabrera Trial] Counsel is unaware of any important 

mitigation evidence that was not presented to the jury or any evidence that would 

have likely altered the jury’s 11–1 vote.”46 Cabrera Trial Counsel’s Rockford Park 

Trial strategy focused on the guilt phase rather than the penalty phase of the 

Rockford Park Trial. At the postconviction hearing, Cabrera Trial Counsel 

testified that they focused on the guilt phase because “once the jury found out that 

[Cabrera] was already serving life for [the] murder [of Otero] . . . it would be tough 

to give [Cabrera] anything other than the death penalty.”47 Neither attorney 

prepared for the penalty phase because Cabrera Trial Counsel agreed to rely on the 

mitigation investigation conducted for the Otero Trial instead. 

 

45 See Ploof, 75 A.3d at 853–55 (discussing the court’s concern that trial counsel had suspected 

there were issues with the defendant). 

46 Cabrera Trial Counsel Aff. ¶ 20(a), (b) (June 17, 2005) (emphasis added). 

47 Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/23/2012 at 77:17–20. 
14

Cabrera Trial Counsel focused on the guilt phase and reused the Otero Trial 

mitigation investigation for the penalty phase. This was a strategic decision and 

the Court must determine if Cabrera Trial Counsel’s decision to reuse the Otero 

Trial mitigation investigation at the Rockford Park Trial was objectively 

reasonable.48 The Court will give deference to “strategic decisions made after 

thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options,” as such 

decisions are “virtually unchallengeable.”49 In other words, the question for the 

Court is not whether Cabrera Trial Counsel should have presented mitigation 

evidence at the Rockford Park Trial. Rather, the question is whether reasonable 

judgment supported the extent of Cabrera Trial Counsel’s mitigation investigation 

(i.e., the use and de minimis supplementation of the Otero Trial investigation) and 

if that investigation supported the subsequent decision not to introduce additional 

mitigating evidence at the Rockford Park Trial.50

 

E. Reliance on the Otero Mitigation Investigation was Not Professionally 

Reasonable 

The Otero Trial mitigation investigation primarily consisted of a 

psychological evaluation of Cabrera by Dr. Edward Dougherty. On May 30, 1998, 

Dr. Dougherty completed a report on Cabrera (“Otero Report”), the purpose of 

 

48 See Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521–29 (2003) (discussing the scope of deference owed to 

a decision to focus on the guilt phase, rather than the penalty phase). 

49 Outten v. Kearney, 464 F.3d 401, 417 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690). 

50 See id. at 416–19; Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 521–23. 
15

which was to complete a comprehensive psychological evaluation of Cabrera and 

render an opinion as to Cabrera’s complete mental health. In addition to 

completing four psychological tests, Dr. Dougherty reviewed Otero Trial discovery 

materials and a background history of Cabrera completed by an investigator.51

 

The Otero Report stated that Cabrera “tends to portray himself as being 

relatively free of common shortcomings to which most individual[s] [sic] will 

admit, and he appears somewhat reluctant to admit minor faults.”52 The Otero 

Report characterized Cabrera as lacking anxiety, problematic behavior, or any 

“serious indicators of a major psychopathological condition.”53 Dr. Dougherty 

concluded the Otero Report with the following, “it is clear that Mr. Cabrera could 

function in a highly structured situation such as a state prison. There was no 

indication that [Cabrera] is [an] [sic] actively violent person who would be a 

danger to himself or other people in a prison environment.”54

At the Rockford Park Trial, Cabrera Trial Counsel relied on the Otero Trial 

investigation because “it was successful in the Otero Trial.” 55 However, Cabrera 

Trial Counsel failed to address the unanswered questions posed by the Otero Trial 

 

51 The investigator hired by Cabrera’s defense lawyers for the Otero Trial was Defense 

Investigator retained by Cabrera Trial Counsel for the Rockford Park Trial. 

52 Psychological Evaluation by Dr. Dougherty (May 30, 1998), Cabrera Ex. 14 at 0054 

(hereinafter Dougherty). 

53 Id. at 0054. 

54 Id. at 0056. 

55 With respect to the Otero murder, the jury voted 7–5 in favor of a death sentence. The Otero 

Trial Court rejected the jury’s death penalty recommendation and sentenced Cabrera to life in 

prison without the possibility of parole. 
16

investigation. For instance, Cabrera Trial Counsel did not address lingering 

concerns from Dr. Dougherty’s Otero Report regarding certain statements Cabrera 

made: “I keep reliving something horrible that happened to me . . . . I’ve been 

troubled by memories of a bad experience for a long time . . . . I have had some 

horrible experiences that make me feel guilty.”56 At the Otero Trial, Dr. 

Dougherty opined that Cabrera has “a problem and [Cabrera] needs to address that 

problem[,]” but Dr. Dougherty did not identify the problem.57 

F. Dr. Dougherty was Unavailable to Testify as a Witness; Dr. Jackson’s LastMinute Independent Review was Cursory and Insufficient; and Dr. Jackson 

was Not a Compelling Witness 

Not only was Dr. Dougherty’s Otero Report inadequate, but it was not even 

presented to the jury by Dr. Dougherty himself because he was unavailable for the 

Rockford Park Trial. Even though Cabrera Trial Counsel had anticipated that Dr. 

Dougherty would present the Otero Report as mitigating evidence during the 

penalty phase of the Rockford Park Trial, Cabrera Trial Counsel did not contact 

Dr. Dougherty until five days before the Rockford Park Trial began.58 Due to the 

short notice, Dr. Dougherty was not available to testify and recommended that his 

partner, Dr. Ryno Jackson, serve as a substitute witness. 

 

56 Dougherty, supra note 52, at 0055. 

57 Otero Tr. 6/3/1998 at 49:16–50:1–19, 50:21–52:1–23, State’s App. at B-46. 

58 Letter to Dr. Edward J. Dougherty (Jan. 5, 2001), Cabrera Ex. 30 at 0116–17. 
17

On February 6, 2001, in the middle of the guilt phase, Dr. Jackson 

completed an independent—but repetitive—psychological evaluation of Cabrera.59

 

Dr. Jackson’s report (“Rockford Report”) reached conclusions based on a clinical 

interview and five psychological evaluation procedures, as well as Dr. Jackson’s 

consideration of Dr. Dougherty’s Otero Report, and the mitigation testimony of 

Stephanie Cabrera and Cabrera’s Mother from the Otero Trial.60 Dr. Jackson 

found Cabrera to be psychologically strong and Dr. Jackson suggested that 

Cabrera’s “principal psychological defense mechanism is denial” and that Cabrera 

demonstrated “some tendency to flights of fantasy of an escapist nature.”61 The 

Rockford Report indicated that Cabrera’s evaluation results suggest “the presence 

of perceptual dysfunction.”62 The Rockford Report concluded, notwithstanding the 

perceptual dysfunction and denial mechanisms, Cabrera was well-suited to deal 

with the demands of prison life.63 

Dr. Jackson also testified that he prepared the Rockford Report with the 

limited purpose of evaluating Cabrera’s ability to adapt to life in prison.64 When 

 

59 Psychological Evaluation by Dr. Jackson (Feb. 6, 2001), Cabrera Ex. 45 at 0211–13 

(hereinafter Jackson). 

60 Id. at 0211–12. 

61 Id. at 0213. 

62 Id.

63 Id.

64 On cross-examination, Dr. Jackson explained that he was “hired to . . . see if there was any 

possibilities of [Cabrera] being a danger to himself or in a prison setting” for the purposes of 

explaining that to the jury.” Penalty Phase Tr. 2/14/2001 at 104:22–105:1–4. See also id. at 
18

asked if he had discussed the murders of Saunders and Rowe or any criminal 

activity at all, Dr. Jackson responded, “No[,] [f]or the simple reason that I didn’t 

have – well, several reasons really, but primarily because it took an extraordinary 

length of time to do what I had to do, what I was tasked with doing.”65

 

At the postconviction hearing, Cabrera Trial Counsel testified that Dr. 

Dougherty recommended that Dr. Jackson testify at the Rockford Park Trial 

because Dr. Jackson “was African-American.”66 According to testimony at the 

evidentiary hearing, Cabrera Trial Counsel contended that Dr. Jackson was better 

suited to present to the jury but admitted “[Dr. Jackson] was terrible on the witness 

stand . . . . [a]nd in hindsight, I would have insisted on Dr. Dougherty instead, but 

that’s in hindsight.”67 In fact, Cabrera Trial Counsel recalled Dr. Jackson’s 

presentation as “bad,” like Dr. Jackson “didn’t know what he was talking about,” 

but it was too late for Cabrera Trial Counsel to make a different presentation.68 

Therefore, an unprepared witness presented the bulk of Cabrera’s mitigation 

evidence to the jury at the penalty phase of the Rockford Park Trial. The Court is 

not saying that Cabrera has been prejudiced due to a lackluster witness. Instead, 

the Court mentions Dr. Jackson’s performance on the witness stand as just one of 

 

111:14–15 (“I was given one task, that is to determine whether [Cabrera] would be functional in 

a [prison] setting structure.”). 

65 Penalty Phase Tr. 2/14/2001 at 116:8–11. 

66 Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/23/2012 at 87:13–15. 

67 Id. at 88:2–6. 

68 Id. at 88:10–14. 
19

the prejudicial consequences resulting from Cabrera Trial Counsel’s untimely and 

deficient preparation for the penalty phase of the Rockford Park Trial.69

 

G. Additional Mitigation Evidence was Minimal 

In addition to the Rockford Report, Cabrera Trial Counsel presented 

mitigation evidence through the testimony of Ronda Frazier, Cabrera Sr., 

Stephanie Cabrera, and Luiz Diaz, cousin of co-defendant Reyes. Ronda Frazier 

testified, specifically, as to her friendship with Cabrera. Frazier mentioned 

Cabrera’s upbringing and recollections he shared with her, of him having it rough 

growing up. This prompted the Trial Court to call for a sidebar conference. 

H. The Trial Court Raised Concerns Regarding Defense Evidence Presented 

At sidebar, the Trial Court discussed recent involvement in another criminal 

trial where the trial judge stated that he had spent three days addressing the issue of 

whether the defendant should present evidence in a penalty hearing. The Trial 

Court explained to Cabrera Trial Counsel, “I mention this for several reasons. . . . 

Ronda Frazier regarding how [Cabrera] had opened up to her and mentioned it was 

rough, the things [Cabrera] had growing up.”70

 

It therefore seems that the Trial Court was concerned that potential issues 

existed because of Cabrera’s upbringing and the concern was significant enough to 

 

69 See Williams, 529 U.S. at 395 (including defense counsel’s delay in conducting its mitigation 

investigation—specifically, waiting a week before trial began—as a component of defense 

counsel’s ineffectiveness). 

70 Penalty Phase Tr. 2/14/2001 at 122:21, 123:5–7. 
20

warrant consideration. Similarly, the State had expressed its concern that certain 

areas of Cabrera’s life had not been explored or investigated, asking, “What was 

Ronda Frazier talking about when she was alluding to things that [Cabrera] 

confided in her?”71

 

In response to the inquiry, Cabrera Trial Counsel remained steadfast that, 

according to Cabrera, “there [were] no family problems” and Cabrera will not 

admit what other people alleged about his childhood.

72 Cabrera Trial Counsel 

conceded that it only learned about Cabrera Sr.’s lifestyle, earning a living as a 

gambler and bookie, on that day but that the information did not have “any 

bearing” on the case.73 Further, Cabrera Trial Counsel reiterated that Cabrera was 

very secretive and that counsel deferred to Cabrera’s wishes not to reveal anything 

negative about his childhood.74 With that, the sidebar conference concluded. 

I. Reliance on Cabrera’s Self-Report was Not Reasonable 

It is ineffective for defense counsel to abandon an investigation after 

gathering “‘rudimentary knowledge of [the defendant’s] history from a narrow set 

of sources.’”75 The Otero Report included a section on Cabrera’s background but 

the information was based solely on Cabrera’s own recollection of his childhood. 

 

71 Id. at 125:16–18. 

72 Id. at 123:15–23, 125:1–126:1–6. 

73 Id. at 125:2–15. 

74 Id. at 126:3–6 (“[CABRERA TRIAL COUNSEL]: Yes[,] [Cabrera] is very secretive . . . . [In] 

[sic] fact [Cabrera] is probably fuming at the fact that Dr. Jackson made that kind of remark 

because he idolizes his father.”). 

75 Ploof, 75 A.3d at 852 (quoting Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 524). 
21

Dr. Dougherty took Cabrera’s information at face value and Cabrera Trial Counsel 

did nothing to investigate evidence that might contradict Cabrera’s own claims of 

an average childhood. Furthermore, as the Rockford Park Trial progressed, 

Cabrera Trial Counsel did nothing to substantiate Cabrera’s recollection of his 

childhood and asked Dr. Jackson to evaluate Cabrera only on how he would fare in 

prison. Cabrera Trial Counsel’s contention that exploration into Cabrera’s 

childhood would have been fruitless based on Cabrera’s assertions is unpersuasive. 

Moreover, it is inconsistent with the mitigating evidence developed in connection 

with the pending postconviction motion. 

Decisional law mandates that defense counsel’s strategic decisions properly 

involve consideration of the defendant’s own statements, actions, and 

preferences.76 On the other hand, the mitigation investigation cannot be limited to 

the degree of information offered by the defendant as to his own past. In Porter v. 

McCollum,

77 the United States Supreme Court explained that a “fatalistic or 

uncooperative [client] . . . does not obviate the need for defense counsel to 

conduct some sort of mitigation investigation.”78 Similarly, in Rompilla v. Beard,

79

the United States Supreme Court determined that the defense counsel’s mitigation 

 

76 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. 

77 558 U.S. 30 (2009). 

78 Id. at 40 (alterations in original). 

79 545 U.S. 374 (2005). 
22

investigation was deficient notwithstanding the defendant’s minimal contributions 

and unwillingness to address his past.80

J. A Complete Mitigation Investigation Would Have Revealed Significant 

Mitigating Evidence that Should Have Been Presented to the Jury 

Cabrera’s Rule 61 motion presents extensive mitigating evidence that 

Cabrera Trial Counsel would have uncovered had a proper mitigation investigation 

been undertaken. 

1. A Complete Psychological Evaluation Would Have Revealed Significant 

Mitigating Evidence Including Abuse and Trauma 

Cabrera Rule 61 Counsel hired Dr. Victoria Reynolds to evaluate Cabrera’s 

history and the extent of any abuse and/or trauma Cabrera may have experienced 

during the early years of his life. Dr. Reynolds was retained to determine how 

trauma may have impaired Cabrera’s functioning and development. 

Dr. Reynolds interviewed Cabrera on August 27 and 28, 2012, for a total of 

thirteen (13) hours. Dr. Reynolds also conducted interviews with Cabrera’s mother 

and Daisy Rodriguez, a childhood friend of Cabrera. In addition, Dr. Reynolds 

reviewed 34 documents such as the Otero Report, the Rockford Report, Cabrera’s 

criminal records, school records, and other records related to Cabrera’s social 

 

80 Id. at 381–83. The Rompilla Court provided, “No reasonable lawyer would forgo examination 

of the file[s] thinking he could do as well by asking the defendant or family[,]” despite knowing 

that the State intends to introduce prior convictions and damaging testimony. Id. at 389–90. 
23

history. Dr. Reynolds then issued a twenty (20) page report outlining her findings 

(“Reynolds Report”).81

In summary, Dr. Reynolds concluded that Cabrera suffered from a history of 

physical, emotional, and verbal abuse. As examples of the prolonged abused 

suffered by Cabrera, Dr. Reynolds noted eight (8) instances of physical abuse by 

Cabrera Sr.; thirteen (13) instances of emotional and verbal abuse by Cabrera Sr.; 

fifteen (15) instances of exposure to domestic violence; and certain recollections of 

fundamental maternal neglect.82 Dr. Reynolds also noted specific instances of 

trauma including five (5) events of neighborhood violence; three (3) recollections 

of being assaulted by strangers; and involvement in four (4) accidents resulting in 

physical injuries.83 Some details include: 

[Cabrera] was the scapegoat for most of his father’s physical rage. 

Beginning when [Cabrera] was very young, [Cabrera Sr.] hit 

[Cabrera] with his hands, belts, whips and hoses . . . . When [Cabrera] 

was 4 or 5 years old, while visiting a neighbor’s house, he stole a 

lighter. When the neighbor asked if [Cabrera] had taken the lighter, 

[Cabrera] admitted it, knowing that what he’d done was wrong. 

[Cabrera Sr.] reacted by verbally berating [Cabrera], stating that 

[Cabrera] had ‘embarrassed the hell out of him,’ and whipping 

[Cabrera] with a hose . . . . [Cabrera’s] mother corroborates 

[Cabrera’s] memory and recalls that [Cabrera Sr.] ‘went on a 

rampage’ with the hose and that [Cabrera] fell to the floor from the 

force of the blows. [Cabrera’s mother] recalls throwing herself over 

[Cabrera] to protect him and getting hit herself with the hose. She 

 

81 Psychological Report of Trauma and Its Impact: Luis G. Cabrera by Dr. Reynolds (Oct. 1, 

2012), Cabrera Ex. 97 at 0799–0818 (hereinafter Reynolds). 

82 Id. at 0801–09. 

83 Id. at 0809–10. 
24

recalls cleaning [Cabrera] up afterwards and that there were welts on 

his back and legs. [Cabrera’s mother] also recalls that the beatings 

and screaming coming from their house were so loud that the 

neighbor from whom [Cabrera] stole the lighter came over and said 

she felt terrible that [Cabrera] had gotten into so much trouble.84

According to Dr. Reynolds, Cabrera also recalled an event where he and his 

sister were “goofing around with his father’s friends’ kids, burping, laughing” at a 

restaurant and, when told to stop, the children continued. Cabrera described the 

following events to Dr. Reynolds: 

[Cabrera] described how [Cabrera Sr.] ‘collared him up,’ by picking 

him up by the front of his shirt, and slammed [Cabrera] against the 

wall. [Cabrera Sr.] then took off his belt and beat [Cabrera] all over 

his body.85

 

Dr. Reynolds emphasized, “[Cabrera] summarized the situation as his fault, and 

was desperate to correct the fact that his father was so upset with him.86

In addition, Cabrera Sr. engaged in emotional and verbal abuse against 

Cabrera throughout Cabrera’s childhood. The Reynolds Report included the 

following examples: 

[Cabrera] recalls hearing his father tell his sister that he wished she’d 

never been born. More often, however, his father would communicate 

how disappointed and disgusted he was with [Cabrera].87

. . . . 

 

84 Id. at 0801–02. 

85 Id. at 0802. 

86 Id.

87 Id. at 0803. 
25

One of the most traumatic experiences [Cabrera] recalls occurred 

when [Cabrera Sr.] would threaten to ostracize [Cabrera] from the 

family for his misdeeds. Despite the fact that [Cabrera] wasn’t doing 

anything wrong and was very submissive and accommodating to his 

father’s demands, [Cabrera] recalls [Cabrera Sr.] telling him on 

several occasions he’d gotten so tired of dealing with [Cabrera] that 

he was going to send [Cabrera] to a residential home. [Cabrera Sr.] 

would pick up the phone and dial a number. [Cabrera] believed he 

was speaking to someone at a residential facility.88

Cabrera’s mother corroborated Cabrera’s claims of physical and emotional 

abuse and discussed her own maternal neglect of Cabrera. Cabrera’s mother 

recalled watching Cabrera Sr. beat Cabrera with a belt for coming down the stairs 

after bedtime,89 and listening to Cabrera Sr. blame his own unhappiness on Cabrera 

and threaten to abandon and punish Cabrera.90

 

2. A Complete Mitigation Investigation Would Have Exposed Cabrera’s 

Deficient Education Record 

A proper mitigation defense would also have presented inconsistencies with 

the information provided by Cabrera for the Otero Trial investigation, including 

Cabrera’s academic history. According to Cabrera, he did well in school and 

“never failed a class.” Relying on Cabrera’s self-report, Cabrera Trial Counsel 

explained to the Trial Court that Cabrera “had an exemplary record . . . . [h]e was a 

C plus student [and] had only two absences in four years.”91 However, Cabrera’s 

 

88 Id. at 0804. 

89 Id. at 0802. 

90 Id. at 0803. 

91 Penalty Phase Tr. 2/14/2001 at 126:11–16. 
26

records do not support these assertions. Even a cursory review of Cabrera’s high 

school transcript shows that Cabrera struggled with school attendance and grades. 

For example, in his first year of high school, Cabrera failed a basic life sciences 

class and was absent seven (7) times.92 Over the next three years, Cabrera’s 

performance and attendance declined. Cabrera failed six (6) classes and was 

absent 10, 15, and 20 times, respectively, totaling 52 absences over four years.93 

Indeed, Cabrera graduated from high school with a grade point average of 1.4.94 

Moreover, at the postconviction hearing, Cabrera’s high school teacher Ms. 

Barbara Finnan testified about Cabrera’s middle school years and her concerns 

about his “family environment.”95 Finnan’s testimony corroborated the 

conclusions in the Reynolds Report: Cabrera suffered from hypervigilance and 

anxiety.96 The reality of Cabrera’s actual high school performance was completely 

at odds with the presentation made at the Rockford Park Trial. 

 

 

92 Cabrera’s Record Folder-NCC School District, Cabrera Ex. 87 at 0763 (hereinafter NCC 

School District). 

93 Id. at 0763. 

94 Id. at 0763. 

95 Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/10/2012 at 12:9–24:1–13. Finnan testified: 

I recall the students who stood out in my classrooms . . . . I thought [Cabrera], 

because he was, to me, a challenge . . . because of the behavior, I was concerned 

about the family environment, that perhaps his dad was too strict at home and . . . 

he might not have the support at home that he might need. 

Id. at 23:11–17. 

96 See id. at 18:8–19:1. 
27

K. Cabrera Trial Counsel was Ineffective With Respect to the Mitigating 

Evidence Presented in the Penalty Phase 

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Strickland requires Cabrera 

show both unreasonable performance and prejudice from such error. To satisfy the 

prejudice prong—with respect to Cabrera’s presentation of new mitigation 

evidence—Cabrera must prove there is a substantial likelihood that, absent Cabrera 

Trial Counsel’s errors, the Trial Court would have had a reasonable basis to 

conclude that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not 

warrant death.97 This Court must “consider all the relevant evidence that the [Trial 

Court] would have had before [it] if [Cabrera Trial Counsel] had pursued a 

different path.”98

1. Cabrera Trial Counsel’s Performance Fell Below an Objective 

Standard of Reasonableness with Respect to Mitigation 

Consideration of the first prong of Strickland requires an analysis of whether 

the performance of Cabrera Trial Counsel fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness. Cabrera Trial Counsel’s strategy ignored the importance of a 

mitigation investigation in capital cases.99 Cabrera Trial Counsel did not present 

 

97 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695; Ploof, 75 A.3d at 886–87 (Strine, C., dissenting) (explaining the 

importance of presenting mitigating evidence to a jury in light in Delaware’s death penalty 

scheme and for purposes of the prejudice prong of Strickland). 

98 Taylor 2011, 32 A.3d at 382 (alteration in original) (internal quotation omitted). 

99 See Gary Goodpaster, The Trial for Life: Effective Assistance of Counsel in Death Penalty 

Cases, 58 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 299 (1983). Goodpaster discusses the role of defense counsel in a 

capital case in the following terms: 
28

mitigation evidence as to Cabrera’s childhood, upbringing, family, or otherwise. 

The decision to rely on the Otero Trial investigation was unreasonable because it 

was incomplete and it was presented by an unsatisfactory witness who conducted 

only a cursory interview with Cabrera, and did not speak to family members or 

review any objective documentation from Cabrera’s childhood. 

Cabrera Trial Counsel faced difficulty when attempting to glean insight into 

the unflattering details of Cabrera’s background because Cabrera was reluctant to 

expose his traumatic history and abusive childhood. Nonetheless, Cabrera Trial 

Counsel had a duty to conduct an independent investigation. For example, Cabrera 

Trial Counsel did not pursue exploration into Cabrera’s childhood in light of Dr. 

Dougherty’s later concerns of abuse and conclusion that Cabrera refused to 

acknowledge certain shortcomings.100 

This Court is cautious to avoid the distorting effects of hindsight when 

evaluating Cabrera Trial Counsel’s conduct and the Court recognizes that Cabrera 

continued to deny any allegations that he suffered as a child and respects the 

 

As an advocate . . . defense counsel has the related but distinct function of 

attempting to persuade the jury to exercise mercy. Defense counsel therefore has 

both the opportunity and the duty to present potentially beneficial mitigating 

evidence and to attempt to convince the sentencer that, notwithstanding the 

defendant's guilt, he or she is a person who should not die. Once the defendant has 

been found guilty of a capital crime, a life sentence is counsel's only remaining 

advocacy goal. As an advocate for life, counsel must attempt to demonstrate that 

mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors and must present the sentencer 

with the most persuasive possible case for mercy. 

Id. at 318.

100 See Otero Tr. 6/3/1998 at 49:16–50:1–19, 50:21–52:1–23, State’s App. at B-46. 
29

influence such denial had upon Cabrera Trial Counsel’s presentation.101 

Nevertheless, Cabrera Trial Counsel had a duty to conduct more than a 

rudimentary investigation, especially in light of suspicions or concerns of issues 

that might have uncovered mitigating evidence. Indeed, the Otero Trial 

investigation and limited supplemental Rockford Park Trial investigation 

overlooked certain indications—or red flags—of underlying issues related to 

Cabrera’s childhood that a reasonable attorney would have explored in an attempt 

to uncover mitigation evidence. 

In certain circumstances, defense counsel must “do more” to uncover 

mitigating evidence.102 Because Cabrera Trial Counsel’s strategy relied on the 

undeveloped information obtained in the Otero Trial mitigation investigation 

supplemented by the Rockford Report, without more, its performance fell below an 

objective standard of reasonableness.103 The first prong of Strickland is satisfied. 

 

 

101 See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 (“[W]hen a defendant has given counsel reason to believe that 

pursuing certain investigations would be fruitless or even harmful, counsel’s failure to pursue 

those investigations may not later be challenged as unreasonable.”). 

102 See Ploof, 75 A.3d at 855 (“We disavow any attempt to create a rigid rule that a defense 

attorney is ineffective whenever that attorney fails to uncover potential mitigating evidence, no 

matter how unapparent. We conclude only that, in these specific circumstances, Trial Counsel 

needed to do more.”). 

103 See id. at 853–55. 
30

2. Cabrera Suffered Prejudice Because There is a Reasonable 

Likelihood that the Result of the Proceeding Would Have Been 

Different 

A proper mitigation defense would have presented an entirely different 

picture of Cabrera’s background. Cabrera Trial Counsel interviewed Cabrera as 

the sole source of information of Cabrera’s childhood. On the other hand, Dr. 

Reynolds testified at the postconviction hearing that talking solely to the abuse 

victim is never sufficient because victims tend to minimize “what is objectively 

abusive.”104 

As another example, Cabrera Trial Counsel failed to contact any of 

Cabrera’s high school teachers to verify Cabrera’s claims that he did well in 

school, and did not even obtain Cabrera’s school records to substantiate his claims 

that he did “well” in school.105 Cabrera Trial Counsel’s claims of Cabrera’s 

“exemplary” high school experience sharply contrasted to the reality of his high 

school experience. 

 

104 Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/25/2012 at 115:10–21. 

105 But see Cabrera Trial Counsel Aff. ¶ 14: 

Denied. Counsel was in possession of all relevant mitigation evidence from 

Cabrera’s first trial. This information was supplemented by interviewing 

Cabrera’s family members and friends regarding their contact with Cabrera while 

incarcerated. Cabrera’s disciplinary file was also reviewed to ascertain how he 

was adjusting to prison life. All information from the [Otero Trial] as well as any 

newly obtained information was given to [Dr. Jackson], who interviewed and 

tested Cabrera prior to the penalty phase of his [Rockford Park Trial]. 
31

In addition, even the limited investigation by Defense Investigator identified 

multiple individuals who could discuss Cabrera’s background but Cabrera Trial 

Counsel never interviewed a majority of the individuals identified by Defense 

Investigator.106 Cabrera Trial Counsel’s opening statement from the penalty phase 

of the Rockford Park Trial highlights Counsel’s strategy. In relevant part, counsel 

stated: 

You are not going to hear that Luis Cabrera had a terrible upbringing, 

that his father was an alcoholic that beat him; that he is a social 

outcast. That is not going to come out. Luis Cabrera is basically - - 

there is nothing wrong with him. No explanation for the things he has 

done. That is the tough part. . . . You are going to hear from [Cabrera 

Sr.] [a]nd the message is simple, don’t do to our [family] what 

[Cabrera] did to others. Give [Cabrera] life.107

Cabrera Trial Counsel’s failure to conduct a complete and thorough 

investigation prejudiced Cabrera. That there was “nothing wrong” as actually 

presented by Cabrera Trial Counsel was inaccurate and woefully deficient. Had 

Cabrera Trial Counsel presented a mitigation case at the penalty phase that 

accurately presented Cabrera’s childhood and upbringing, there is a substantial 

likelihood that the jury would have had recommended life rather than death. The 

second prong of Strickland is satisfied. 

 

106 See Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/23/2012 at 92:1–93:1–10. 

107 Penalty Phase Tr. 2/13/2001 at 29:7–20 (emphasis added). See also Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/23/2012 

at 91:3–10. 
32

3. The Remedy for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel During the Penalty 

Phase is to Vacate the Death Sentence Imposed by the Trial Court 

Cabrera was entitled to have the extensive mitigating evidence presented to a 

jury for its consideration in reaching a sentencing recommendation.108 This Court 

finds that Cabrera Trial Counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel with 

respect to the mitigation investigation, the lack of preparation for the penalty 

phase, and the inaccurate presentation of Cabrera’s childhood and upbringing. 

Under Strickland, the appropriate remedy is for Cabrera’s death sentence to be 

vacated. 

V. CABRERA IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF 

FOR HIS REVERSE-BATSON CLAIM 

BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SATISFY STRICKLAND

This Court will consider the merits of procedurally sufficient constitutional 

claims as well as any colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Cabrera’s reverse-Batson claim will be addressed on the merits as a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Cabrera argues that Cabrera Trial Counsel’s 

representation was ineffective because Counsel purposefully discriminated against 

jurors on the basis of race during jury selection thereby committing a reverseBatson violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

 

108 See 11 Del. C. § 4209. 
33

A. Purposeful Discrimination in Jury Selection is Prohibited 

In Batson v. Kentucky,

109 the United States Supreme Court held that 

discrimination on account of race in selection of jurors, by the State, is prohibited 

and a prosecutor’s “racial discrimination . . . violates a defendant’s right to equal 

protection because it denies him the protection that a trial by jury is intended to 

secure.”110 In Powers v. Ohio,

111 the Supreme Court expanded Batson, holding that 

“a criminal defendant may object to race-based exclusion of jurors effected 

through peremptory challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded juror 

share the same races.”112 One year later, in Georgia v. McCollum,

113 the Supreme 

Court expanded Batson again, holding that criminal defendants, like prosecutors, 

were prohibited from engaging in purposeful discrimination on ground of race.114

 

A Batson objection to the defendant’s exercise of a peremptory challenge is known 

as a reverse-Batson claim.115 Batson and its decisional progeny teach reciprocity 

of equal protection and warn that “[t]he harm from discriminatory jury selection 

extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the 

 

109 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 

110 Id. at 86, 98. 

111 499 U.S. 400 (1991). 

112 Id. at 402. 

113 505 U.S. 42 (1992). 

114 Id. at 59 (“[T]he exercise of a peremptory challenge must not be based on either the race of 

the juror or the racial stereotypes held by the party.”). The McCollum Court explained that 

discrimination during jury selection upsets “the fairness of, and public confidence in, the 

criminal justice system[,]” and “undermine[s] the very foundation of our system of justice.” Id. 

at 48–49. 

115 State v. McCoy, 112 A.3d 239, 249 (Del. 2015). 
34

entire community.”116 The prohibition of purposeful discrimination preserves the 

integrity of the criminal justice system.117

B. Cabrera Trial Counsel Utilized a Racially-Motivated Strategy in Jury 

Selection to Exclude Three Black Potential Jurors 

Cabrera Trial Counsel pursued a racially-motivated strategy during jury 

selection by strategically excluding black males and mothers of young black males 

from the jury. Specifically, Cabrera Trial Counsel exercised peremptory 

challenges to exclude three black potential jurors from the jury of the Rockford 

Park Trial.118 Also, Cabrera Trial Counsel expressed a preference for Hispanic 

jurors.119 

The first reference to considerations of juror race during jury selection was a 

discussion on the record initiated by Cabrera Trial Counsel: 

MR. FIGLIOLA: Your Honor, we’re not going to - - I’d like to say 

something. We’re not going to oppose [the State’s strike of Mr. 

Caraballo for cause]. I don’t think we can . . . . However, out of a jury 

very near of 157, [Mr. Caraballo] was the only Hispanic. 

MR. WOOD: That’s not true. 

THE TRIAL COURT: Well, [Mr. Caraballo] was the only one 

marked Hispanic. 

MR. FIGLIOLA: Only one marked Hispanic. For that reason - - 

 

116 Batson, 476 U.S. at 87. 

117 Powers, 499 U.S. at 413–14. 

118 Jury Selection Tr. 1/10/2001 at 179:15–16; Jury Selection Tr. 1/11/2001 at 167:8–9; Jury 

Selection Tr. 1/12/2001 at 151:10–11. 

119 See Jury Selection Tr. 1/12/2001 at 120:5–21; Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/23/2012 at 42:7–13. 
35

THE TRIAL COURT: I understand. 

MR. WOOD: Well, let’s flush out that record. 

MR. FIGLIOLA: For that reason, we were anxious, if at all possible, 

to have Mr. Caraballo qualify as a juror.120

The second reference to considerations of race during jury selection took 

place after Cabrera Trial Counsel exercised a third peremptory challenge against a 

black potential juror and the Trial Court initiated the following colloquy: 

THE TRIAL COURT: Before the next juror, please, I don’t mean to 

pull the pin out of the hand grenade, but that’s at least the third 

African-American the defense has stricken. Two others were females, 

as I recall, and one of them was a male, too. 

MR. WOOD: Your Honor has correctly recounted the record 

pertaining to the defense use of strikes. We have no application at this 

time, however. 

MR. DECKERS: Does the Court wish for me to make a record? 

THE TRIAL COURT: You might want to protect yourself, sure. 

MR. DECKERS: Well, I don’t - - 

MR. WOOD: We have no application at this time and, in particular, 

we are not alleging, nor do we ask the [Trial] Court to find that a 

prima facie case of racial animus in the exercise of peremptory 

challenges has been shown by this record. 

THE TRIAL COURT: Okay. I make no such finding anyway. I’m 

not making a finding. I’m merely making an observation.121

 

 

120 Jury Selection Tr. 1/12/2001 at 120:5–21 

121 Id. at 152:9–153:1–8. 
36

The third discussion of considerations of race during jury selection took 

place when the Trial Court conducted an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Rule 

61(h), at which hearing Cabrera Rule 61 Counsel questioned Cabrera Trial Counsel 

on its jury selection strategy, as follows: 

CABRERA RULE 61 COUNSEL: What do you recall about your 

strategy in selecting jurors in this case and how you decided to use 

your peremptory strikes? 

. . . . 

CABRERA TRIAL COUNSEL: We . . . went in to the jury 

attempting to get jurors that we thought would be more inclined to 

find an acquittal. Specifically, I don’t think we wanted any young 

black males. We didn’t want any mothers of young black males . . . 

which is somewhat unusual when you go into a murder case, because 

generally those people would tend not to give the death penalty. 

CABRERA RULE 61 COUNSEL: Do you recall executing that 

strategy and using your strikes? 

CABRERA TRIAL COUNSEL: I’m pretty sure we did. I think we 

did. 

CABRERA RULE 61 COUNSEL: Do you recall indicating to the 

[Trial] Court during jury selection that you were hopeful to have 

Hispanic jurors seated in this case? 

CABRERA TRIAL COUNSEL: I don’t recall that, but it would not 

surprise me, if we did. 

CABRERA RULE 61 COUNSEL: Why not? 

CABRERA TRIAL COUNSEL: Because [Cabrera] was Hispanic.122

 

122 Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/23/2012 at 40:22–23, 41:16–23, 42:4–13 (emphasis added). 
37

 Therefore, the record supports a finding that Cabrera Trial Counsel made a 

deliberate and racially-motivated decision to exclude from the jury young black 

males and mothers of young black males on the assumption that these individuals 

would be sympathetic to the victims, Saunders and Rowe. In addition, Cabrera 

Trial Counsel’s racially-motivated strategy for jury selection was to include

Hispanic jurors solely because that Cabrera is Hispanic.123 

C. Race-Based Selection of Jurors Was Not Challenged at Rockford Park 

Trial or on Direct Appeal 

A reverse-Batson claim was not raised during jury selection for the Rockford 

Park Trial. Had a reverse-Batson claim been raised directly, the three-step inquiry

delineated by the Delaware Supreme Court in its decision in McCoy v. State, would 

have been required: 

First, the trial judge must determine whether the State has made a 

prima facie showing that the defendant exercised a peremptory 

challenge on the basis of race. Second, if the showing is made, the 

burden shifts to the defendant to present a race-neutral explanation for 

striking the juror in question . . . . [S]o long as the reason is not 

inherently discriminatory, it suffices. Third, the trial judge must then 

determine whether the State has carried its burden of proving 

purposeful discrimination. This final step involves evaluating the 

persuasiveness of the justification proffered by the defendant, but the 

ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, 

and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.124

 

 

123 See Powers, 499 U.S. at 402 (“[A] criminal defendant may object to race-based exclusions of 

jurors effected through peremptory challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded 

juror share the same races.”). 

124 McCoy, 112 A.3d at 251 (internal citations omitted). 
38

In connection with this three-step inquiry, the Trial Court might have exercised the 

court’s discretion to prevent Cabrera Trial Counsel from exercising peremptory 

challenges in a racially-motivated manner. However, the three-step inquiry did not 

take place because there was no challenge by Cabrera or the State. 

If a reverse-Batson claim had been raised on direct appeal, and the Delaware 

Supreme Court found a reverse-Batson error, then Cabrera would have been 

entitled to a presumption of prejudice because Batson errors qualify as structural 

error. Structural errors are “defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism” that 

infect the “entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end.”125 Structural errors 

deprive defendants from basic protections without which “a criminal trial cannot 

reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence, and 

no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.”126

 

 However, in the case now pending before this Court, no reverse-Batson error 

was raised during jury selection or on direct appeal. Furthermore, the Trial Court 

did not impede on Cabrera Trial Counsel’s exercise of peremptory challenges.127 

Indeed, Cabrera Trial Counsel exercised Cabrera’s peremptory challenges in the 

exact manner they intended. Nevertheless, Cabrera asserts that this Court should 

address his reverse-Batson claim on the merits as structural error on the grounds 

 

125 Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309 (1991); Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1999). 

126 Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 310 (internal citation omitted). 

127 Cf. McCoy, 112 A.3d 239 (Del. 2015); Sells v. State, 109 A.3d 568 (Del. 2015). 
39

that this type of error by Cabrera Trial Counsel satisfies the miscarriage of justice 

exception and requires grating a new trial. This Court disagrees and finds that 

Cabrera’s reverse-Batson claim may be presented in this postconviction proceeding 

for the first time only as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and as 

discussed below, prejudice must be established. Moreover, this Court finds, as 

discussed below, that there was no miscarriage of justice in the guilt phase of 

Cabrera’s Rockford Park Trial. 

D. Cabrera’s Case is Distinguishable from McCoy v. State and Sells v. State 

because Cabrera’s Reverse-Batson Claim is Asserted in Postconviction 

Proceedings 

In 2015, the Delaware Supreme Court issued two decisions overturning 

judgments of conviction against defendants on grounds of reverse-Batson error.

128

 

In McCoy, the defendant had exercised fourteen peremptory challenges to exclude 

white jurors.129 When the McCoy defendant exercised his fifteenth peremptory 

challenge, the trial judge sua sponte sought a justification from the defendant.130

 

Despite two race-neutral explanations, the trial judge refused to accept the 

defendant’s peremptory challenge.131 Upon the defendant’s appeal from his death 

sentence, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded that the trial court “committed 

 

128 See also Grimes v. State, 2015 WL 2015 WL 2231801 (Del. May 12, 2015) (vacating the 

judgment of convictions entered against Grimes in the same trial as William S. Sells, III, for the 

reasons set forth in the Sells v. State decision).

129 McCoy, 112 A.3d at 249–50. 

130 Id. at 250. 

131 Id.
40

reversible error when it improperly denied [the defendant]’s right to exercise a 

peremptory challenge to strike a potential juror.”132 The Supreme Court 

determined a new trial was the proper remedy because trial court’s error violated 

the defendant’s right to a fair trial with a jury panel comprised of impartial 

jurors.133 Specifically, the improper denial of the defendant’s peremptory 

challenge “forced the defendant to be judged by a jury that includes a juror that 

was objectionable to him.”134 

In Sells, the State made a reverse-Batson challenge during jury selection 

arguing that the defendant, a minority, was engaging in racial discrimination by 

using two of his three peremptory challenges to strike white jurors.135 The trial 

court found that the defendant had engaged in a “pattern of racial discrimination” 

and required the defendant to provide reasons for exclusion of jurors during the 

remaining process of jury selection.136 The defendant appealed his conviction on 

the grounds that the trial court erred when the court allowed the State’s reverseBatson challenge. The Delaware Supreme Court determined that the trial court had 

improperly restricted the defendant’s ability to use his peremptory challenges by 

requiring that the defendant articulate a non-discriminatory reason for exercising 

 

132 Id. at 245. 

133 Id. at 254–58. 

134 Id. at 257–58. 

135 Sells, 109 A.3d at 577. 

136 Id. at 578. 
41

his peremptory strikes.

137

 Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment

of conviction that resulted from the trial.138

 

Cabrera’s case is distinguishable from McCoy and Sells because neither the 

State nor the Trial Court raised a reverse-Batson claim against Cabrera Trial 

Counsel during jury selection for the Rockford Park Trial. Next, Cabrera’s case is 

distinguishable because Cabrera–rather than the State or the Trial Court–has raised 

the reverse-Batson claim against his own counsel in a different procedural context: 

postconviction relief. Finally, unlike in McCoy and Sells, Cabrera was not 

prevented from exercising his peremptory challenges. Indeed, Cabrera’s Rockford 

Park Trial jury was comprised of the jurors Cabrera Trial Counsel thought best 

suited to consider Cabrera’s case. 

E. To Prevail on His Reverse-Batson Claim, Cabrera Must Demonstrate that 

Cabrera Trial Counsel’s Strategy of Race-Based Jury Selection was 

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

To prevail on his reverse-Batson claim, Cabrera must satisfy the test set 

forth in Strickland: (1) Cabrera Trial Counsel’s representation fell below an 

objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, 

but for the errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.139

 

137 Id. at 579–82. 

138 Id. at 582. 

139 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. 
42

1. Cabrera Trial Counsel’s Racially-Motivated Jury Selection Strategy 

Fell Below an Objective Standard of Reasonableness under Strickland 

Cabrera Trial Counsel’s racially-motivated strategy was inconsistent with 

the teachings of Batson, Powers, and McCollum. Indeed, such conduct is 

unequivocally banned in that “[d]efense counsel is limited to ‘legitimate, lawful 

conduct.’”140 While a defendant has “the right to an impartial jury that can view 

him without racial animus,” the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel does 

not give the defendant “the right to carry out through counsel an unlawful course 

of conduct.”141 As the McCollum Court explained: 

[T]here is a distinction between exercising a peremptory challenge to 

discriminate invidiously against jurors on account of race and 

exercising a peremptory challenge to remove an individual juror who 

harbors racial prejudice. This Court firmly has rejected the view that 

assumptions of partiality based on race provide legitimate basis for 

disqualifying a person as an impartial juror. As this Court stated . . . 

in Powers, ‘[w]e may not accept as a defense to racial discrimination 

the very stereotype the law condemns.’142

 

Delaware law is consistent with these principles. According to Delaware’s 

Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”), a Delaware lawyer’s conduct “should 

conform to the requirements of the law.”143 The Rules confer upon the client the 

ultimate authority to determine the scope and purposes of the legal representation 

 

140 McCollum, 505 U.S. at 57 (quoting Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 166 (1986)). 

141 Id. at 58. 

142 Id. at 59 (quoting Powers, 499 U.S. at 410). 

143 Del. Lawyers’ R. Prof’l Conduct Preamble, 5; Del. Lawyers’ R. Prof’l Conduct 8.4(d) 

(providing that any course of action that is “prejudicial to the administration of justice” is 

professional misconduct). 
43

but simultaneously require that the lawyer act “within the limits imposed by law

and the lawyer’s professional obligations.”144

 

Furthermore, labeling Cabrera Trial Counsel’s conduct as “strategic,” does 

not change the analysis. Batson serves to protect the interests of defendants, 

prosecutors and, most importantly; Batson serves to protect the interests of 

prospective jurors and society’s interest in an unbiased judicial system.145 Batson 

is clear that “[c]ompetence to serve as a juror ultimately depends on an assessment 

of individual qualifications and ability impartially to consider evidence presented 

at trial[,] [and] [a] person’s race simply is unrelated to his fitness as a juror.”146 

In light of the well-settled decisional law, this Court concludes that Cabrera 

Trial Counsel’s exercise of peremptory challenges in furtherance of the admittedly 

race-based juror selection strategy constituted a reverse-Batson error that was not 

consistent with prevailing professional norms. Accordingly, the first prong of 

Strickland is satisfied because Cabrera Trial Counsel’s performance fell below an 

objective standard of reasonableness. 

 

144 Del. Lawyers’ R. Prof’l Conduct 1.2, cmt. 1 (emphasis added). See also Del. Lawyers’ R. 

Prof’l Conduct Preamble, 9 (noting that “the lawyer's obligation zealously to protect and pursue 

a client's legitimate interests, within the bounds of the law[.]”) (emphasis added). 

145 Batson, 476 U.S. at 99. 

146 Id. at 87 (internal citation omitted). 
44

2. Cabrera Must Demonstrate Prejudice under the Second Prong of 

Strickland 

Cabrera contends that prejudice from Cabrera Trial Counsel’s reverseBatson error is presumed under Strickland because the error is so egregious that it 

amounts to a “structural error” and requires a new trial. This Court rejects 

Cabrera’s argument that prejudice must be presumed. Rather, this Court finds that 

the second prong of Strickland requires that Cabrera demonstrate actual prejudice: 

that, but for Cabrera Trial Counsel’s reverse-Batson error, the result of the 

proceeding would have been different. 

Courts are split between two prevailing schools of thought on how to 

evaluate the prejudice prong of a Strickland claim based on a reverse-Batson error. 

Either prejudice is presumed because a reverse-Batson error is a structural error147

 

or there must be specific instances of prejudice that demonstrate a reasonable 

probability that the results of the proceeding would have been different absent 

defense counsel’s exercise of peremptory strikes.148 

Cabrera asks this Court to follow the former. In support, Cabrera relies on 

the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Winston v. Boatwright, in which 

the Court of Appeals held “[u]nconstitutional juror strikes, like other structural 

 

147 See generally Winston v. Boatwright, 649 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussing the prejudice 

prong of a Strickland on grounds of a reverse-Batson error). 

148 See U.S. v. Kehoe, 712 F.3d 1251, 1253–54 (8th Cir. 2013) (relying on the decision in Young 

v. Bowersox, 161 F.3d 1159 (8th Cir. 1998) to reject the defendant’s argument that an ineffective 

claim based on a Batson error requires a presumption of prejudice). 
45

errors, create the kind of problem that def[ies] analysis by harmless error 

standards.”149 In light of this conclusion, the Winston Court concluded that despite 

Strickland’s call for an examination of prejudice, reverse-Batson errors are 

included in the “limited class on fundamental constitutional errors”150 where 

“prejudice is so likely that ‘case-by-case inquiry into prejudice is not worth the 

cost’—‘prejudice is presumed.’”151

Absent Delaware precedent on this issue, this Court declines to extend the 

well-settled Delaware law under Strickland that requires a finding of actual 

prejudice. According to Strickland, “[t]he benchmark for judging any claim of 

ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper 

functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having 

produced a just result.”152 The heavy burden of satisfying the Strickland prejudice 

prong is the defendant’s burden.153

 

 

149 Winston, 649 F.3d at 633 (internal citation omitted). 

150 Id. at 632 (citing Neder, 527 U.S. at 7). 

151 Id. at 633 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692). 

152 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686. 

153 See Younger, 580 A.2d at 555 (“[I]n a postconviction proceeding, the petitioner has the 

burden of proof and must show that he has been deprived of a substantial constitutional right 

before he is entitled to any relief.”). 
46

3. Cabrera Was Not Prejudiced by Cabrera Trial Counsel’s ReverseBatson Error as Required for Relief under Strickland Because there is 

No Reasonable Likelihood that the Result of the Rockford Park Trial 

Would Have Been Different Absent Cabrera Trial Counsel’s ReverseBatson Error 

Cabrera’s claim of ineffective counsel requires this Court consider whether 

the reverse-Batson error committed by Cabrera Trial Counsel prejudiced Cabrera. 

Under Strickland, Cabrera bears the burden of establishing prejudice suffered as a 

result of Cabrera Trial Counsel’s errors. Prejudice is defined as “a reasonable 

probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding 

would have been different.”154 Cabrera must make specific and substantiated 

allegations of prejudice.155 Failure to do so undermines Cabrera’s claim of 

ineffective counsel.156

Even though Cabrera Trial Counsel’s performance was deficient, Cabrera 

has not demonstrated that he suffered prejudice under the second prong of 

Strickland. Cabrera had a trial by jury, with the jurors that his lawyers thought 

would be most sympathetic to him.157 Cabrera has not demonstrated prejudice to 

his interests.

 

154 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694; Hoskins v. State, 102 A.3d 724, 730 (Del. 2014). 

155 Wright 1996, 671 A.2d at 1356. 

156 Dawson, 673 A.2d at 1196. 

157 Cabrera’s Rockford Park Trial jury consisted of eight females and four males. Seven of the 

female jurors represented their race as “white” and one represented her race as “black.” Of the 

four male jurors, two identified as “white” and the other two did not identify with a specific race. 

See Juror Profile (Jan. 9, 2001), Cabrera Ex. 32, 33 at 0121–0173. 
47

This Court recognizes that Cabrera Trial Counsel’s reverse-Batson error 

harmed the interests of the public as well as the integrity of the criminal justice 

system. This Court does not condone–nor does the law permit–Cabrera Trial 

Counsel’s conduct. Yet, Cabrera has not demonstrated that he suffered actual

prejudice from Cabrera Trial Counsel’s reverse-Batson error. Therefore, upon 

consideration of the record and the decisional law of Batson and Strickland, this 

Court finds that Cabrera has failed to make a showing of actual prejudice and, 

therefore, the second prong of Strickland is not satisfied. Accordingly, Cabrera has 

not demonstrated that Cabrera Trial Counsel was ineffective in connection with 

Cabrera’s reverse-Batson claim. 

VI. CABRERA CANNOT ESTABLISH INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 

COUNSEL ON OTHER CLAIMS RELATED TO THE PENALTY PHASE

 This Court will consider the merits of procedurally sufficient constitutional 

claims as well as any colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. With 

respect to the penalty phase of the Rockford Park Trial, in addition to the 

arguments related to the mitigation investigation,158 Cabrera contends that Trial 

Counsel was ineffective for failing to argue residual doubt as a mitigating factor; 

failing to object to the introduction of details regarding the Otero murder; failing to 

object to the presentation of transcript testimony for Reyes and Wilson Serrano; 

and failing to object to the State’s argument that the death penalty was the only 

 

158 See supra Section IV. 
48

appropriate sentence for Cabrera. Presentation of evidence at a penalty hearing is 

quite broad if admissible as relevant under 11 Del. C. § 4209(c).159

A. Residual Doubt as a Mitigating Factor 

Cabrera contends Cabrera Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to argue 

residual doubt as a mitigating factor during the penalty phase because the State 

presented solely circumstantial evidence and because the jury was deadlocked 

before receiving an Allen charge. According to Cabrera, Cabrera Trial Counsel’s 

failure to argue residual doubt deprived Cabrera of the opportunity to have the jury 

consider a powerful mitigating factor. 

Cabrera is correct that neither the United States of Delaware Constitutions, 

nor the applicable decisional law, prohibits capital defendants from relying on 

residual doubt.160 However, the constitutions and decisional law do not require a 

presentation in the penalty phase regarding residual doubt. Indeed, the United 

States Supreme Court has definitively stated that defendants have no “right to 

demand jury consideration of ‘residual doubts’ in the [penalty] phase.”161 

 

159 See 11 Del. C. § 4209(c) (providing that at a death penalty hearing, “evidence may be 

presented as to any manner that the Court deems relevant and admissible to the penalty to be 

imposed[,]” including all matters related to mitigating and aggravating circumstances). 

160 See Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 173–75 (1988); Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 

1049–51 (Del. 2003), impliedly overruled on other grounds in Steckel v. State, 882 A.2d 168, 

171 (Del. 2005); Shelton v. State, 744 A.2d 465, 496–97 (Del. 1999) (explaining that there is no 

blanket exclusion from discussing residual doubt). 

161 Franklin, 487 U.S. at 173, 174. 
49

Even if this Court agreed that Cabrera Trial Counsel’s conduct unreasonably 

deprived Cabrera of the opportunity to have the jury consider residual doubt, 

Cabrera has not provided specific allegations of prejudice. Cabrera’s conclusory 

assertion that Cabrera Trial Counsel should have argued residual doubt does not 

satisfy the requirements of the two-prong Strickland analysis. Cabrera Trial 

Counsel’s strategic decision not to offer an argument regarding residual doubt did 

not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. 

B. Presentation of Luis Reyes’ and William Serrano’s Testimony by 

Transcript rather than Calling Witnesses Live 

At the penalty phase of the Rockford Park Trial, the State read the prior 

testimony of Reyes and Serrano from the Otero Trial into the record for the jury’s 

consideration.162 Reyes’ Otero Trial testimony discussed Reyes’ relationship with 

Cabrera and the circumstances of the Otero murder.163 Serrano’s Otero Trial 

testimony discussed a statement allegedly made by Cabrera in which Cabrera 

admitted Cabrera had killed someone.164 Cabrera argues that Cabrera Trial 

Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the presentation of prior testimony 

of Reyes and Serrano by reading transcripts instead of calling each witness to 

testify in court with the opportunity for cross-examination. 

 

162 Reyes testified against Cabrera at the Otero Trial. 

163 Penalty Phase Tr. 2/13/2001 at 33:1–142:1–15 (reading of Reyes’ testimony). 

164 Id. at 146:9–183:1–2 (reading of Serrano’s testimony).
50

1. Testimony of Reyes from Otero Trial 

With respect to the prior testimony of Reyes, Cabrera argues the testimony 

was inadmissible as hearsay. Specifically, Cabrera claims the State’s reading of 

Reyes’ prior testimony violated Cabrera’s right to confrontation because Cabrera 

Trial Counsel failed to object to the State introduction of the testimony in a manner 

that denied Cabrera the opportunity to cross-examine Reyes or otherwise test the 

accuracy of Reyes’ testimony and his credibility as a witness.165

Cabrera’s arguments do not satisfy Strickland. First, Reyes’ prior testimony 

was admissible evidence under 11 Del. C. § 4209(c) which states that, at a death 

penalty hearing, “evidence may be presented as to any manner that the Court 

deems relevant and admissible to the penalty to be imposed,” including all matters 

related to mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Delaware decisional law 

permits a “very wide range of evidence . . . in a penalty hearing.”166 Accordingly, 

any objection by Cabrera Trial Counsel would have been futile as Reyes’ prior 

testimony was relevant to the penalty phase of the Rockford Park Trial. 

Furthermore, Cabrera Trial Counsel did not object because Cabrera “through 

his trial counsel in the Otero case, had a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine 

 

165 See Wheeler v. State, 36 A.3d 310, 317–18 (Del. 2012) (“[T]he Confrontation Clause 

prohibits the admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless 

[the witness] was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for crossexamination.” (alteration in original) (internal quotation omitted)). 

166 State v. Cohen, 634 A.2d 380, 384 (Del. Super. 1992) (internal citation omitted). 
51

Reyes.”167 In addition, even if Cabrera Trial Counsel would have objected to the 

reading of Reyes’ testimony, Reyes’ most certainly would have invoked his Fifth 

Amendment right because his Rockford Park Trial was still pending.168

 

The decisions by Cabrera Trial Counsel not to object to the presentation of 

Reyes’ prior testimony by transcript did not fall below an objective standard of 

reasonableness. Accordingly, Cabrera fails to satisfy the Strickland test. 

2. Prior Testimony of Serrano from Otero Trial 

With respect to the prior testimony of Serrano, Cabrera Trial Counsel did not 

object to the reading of Serrano’s testimony transcript. Indeed, after consulting 

with Cabrera, Counsel agreed with the transcript presentation. Cabrera Trial 

Counsel stated at side bar: 

Your Honor . . . [the State] had asked . . . whether we would object to 

handling . . . Mr. Serrano in the same manner [as] Mr. Reyes or [if] 

we’ll [sic] require Mr. Serrano to be present. [Cabrera Trial Counsel] 

also had discussed it with Mr. Cabrera, and . . . it was our intention 

even if Mr. Serrano came in we were going to introduce his testimony 

from the [Otero Trial] hearing . . . . Therefor[e] [Cabrera Trial 

Counsel] ha[s] no objection to [Serrano’s testimony] being handled in 

this manner.169

 

Furthermore, Cabrera Trial Counsel explained to the Trial Court that 

Cabrera had been informed of his right to confront Serrano and Cabrera and 

 

167 Cabrera Trial Counsel Aff. ¶ 20(c). 

168 By contrast, in connection with his testimony at the Otero Murder Trial, Reyes had already 

entered a guilty plea in connection with Otero’s death, waiving his right to assert his Fifth 

Amendment privileges against self-incrimination. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). 

169 Penalty Phase Tr. 2/13/2001 at 144:22–145:1–11. 
52

acknowledged waiver of “whatever evidentiary rules may inhibit or prevent or 

create difficulty for introduction of [Serrano’s] transcript . . . .”170 Cabrera Trial 

Counsel explained that Cabrera was “well aware . . . . [and] accepted it.”171 

This Court finds that the record demonstrates that Cabrera Trial Counsel 

made a reasonable strategic decision regarding the presentation of Serrano’s prior 

testimony. The decision by Cabrera Trial Counsel not to object to the presentation 

of Serrano’s prior testimony by transcript did not fall below an objective standard 

of reasonableness. Accordingly, Cabrera fails to satisfy the Strickland test. 

3. State’s Detailed Presentation Regarding Otero Murder 

Cabrera contends that, although the parties stipulated to the admission into 

evidence of Cabrera’s criminal record, the State nonetheless presented additional 

evidence concerning the “gruesome details” of the Otero murder. According to 

Cabrera, Cabrera Trial Counsel should have objected and did not do so thereby 

providing ineffective assistance of counsel. Cabrera argues that Cabrera Trial 

Counsel should have objected to this presentation as prejudicial under Delaware 

Rule of Evidence 403, which applies with equal force in the penalty phase of 

trial172 and prohibits the use of evidence if its probative value is substantially 

outweighed by the prejudice caused to the defendant. 

 

170 Id. at 145:12–15, 145:23–146:1–2. 

171 Id. at 145:23–146:1–2. 

172 See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 203–04 (1976); Cohen, 634 A.2d at 385. 
53

In support of this claim, Cabrera relies on the Delaware Supreme Court’s 

decision in State v. Cohen for his contention that, during the penalty phase, 

evidence of previous crimes may be excluded as unduly prejudicial.173 However, 

Cabrera misapplies the conclusions of Cohen, which addresses the relevance and 

prejudicial effect of “unadjudicated incidents”174 while, in this case, Cabrera had 

already been convicted and sentenced for Otero’s murder. Moreover, as the Cohen 

Court explained: 

Much of the information that is relevant to the sentencing decision 

may have no relevance to the question of guilt, or may even be 

extremely prejudicial to a fair determination of that question. Thus, 

even if the Court had ruled evidence of these unadjudicated incidents 

to be inadmissible during the guilt phase because their probative value 

was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, that balancing 

becomes different in the penalty phase . . . . [Indeed], such incidents 

assume a greater relevance in a capital penalty hearing.175

Furthermore, the Cohen Court notes that, under the death penalty statute, “the jury 

and the judge must weigh the totality of the circumstances.”176

 

Cabrera has not demonstrated that Cabrera Trial Counsel’s representation 

fell below an objective standard of reasonableness with respect to the Otero murder 

presentation. Accordingly, Cabrera cannot satisfy the Strickland criteria. 

 

173 See Cohen, 634 A.2d at 385. 

174 Id. “[E]ven with the heightened relevance of this evidence in a penalty hearing, there remains 

concern about the unfair prejudice that may result from evidence about a crime for which there 

has been no conviction.” Id. at 387–88, 392 (emphasis added). 

175 Cohen, 634 A.2d at 385 (internal citations omitted). 

176 Id. at 386 (emphasis added). 
54

4. State’s Punishment Theme in Closing 

Cabrera argues that Cabrera Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to 

object to the State’s punishment theme during its closing. However, Cabrera Trial 

Counsel did object to the State’s punishment theme, but counsel’s objection was 

overruled by the Trial Court. During an office conference on February 13, 2001, 

Cabrera Trial Counsel argued that it was an “improper argument for sentencing 

that because [Cabrera] is already serving a life sentence that any[] [punishment] 

less than death . . . . [does] not satisfy society’s goals.”177 The Trial Court 

concluded that the State could argue the fact that Cabrera was already serving a life 

sentence as a non-statutory aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.178 Cabrera 

has not demonstrated that Cabrera Trial Counsel’s representation fell below an 

objective standard of reasonableness since the objection was made but overruled 

by the Trial Court. 

VII. CABRERA TRIAL COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO SEEK SUPPRESSION 

OF THE GUN SEIZED FROM CABRERA SR.’S RESIDENCE 

WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Cabrera argues that Cabrera Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to seek 

suppression of a .38 Special Armenius Titan Tiger gun (“38 Special Gun”) because 

it was seized during a warrantless search during the unrelated Otero investigation. 

Cabrera’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to the decision by 

 

177 Office Conf. Tr. 2/13/2001 at 26:18–22. 

178 Id. at 28:2–4. 
55

Cabrera Trial Counsel not to seek suppression of the 38 Special Gun seized from 

Cabrera Sr.’s residence will be addressed on the merits.179

 

On March 20, 1997, in connection with an investigation the murder of 

Funador Otero, police officers arrived at the home of Cabrera Sr. who signed a 

“Consent to Search Form;”180 told the police there was a gun in the front bedroom; 

and led the police to the 38 Special Gun. Cabrera Sr. also told the police that 

Cabrera knew where Cabrera Sr. kept the 38 Special Gun and had access to it.181 

The police seized the 38 Special Gun. 

Four days later, the State’s Lead Investigating Officer Detective Mark 

Lemon (“State Lead Investigating Officer”) sent the 38 Special Gun and bullet 

fragments from the Rockford Park Murders for testing. It was determined that the 

38 Special Gun matched the weapon that fired the bullet recovered from Rowe’s 

body. State Lead Investigating Officer used the ballistics evidence to obtain a 

search warrant for Cabrera Sr.’s house (“Cabrera Sr. Search Warrant”).182 

 

179 In 2008, Cabrera’s Rule 61 Counsel filed a motion for leave to conduct discovery on three 

matters related to Cabrera’s Rule 61 motion, including issues related to the seizure of the 38 

Special Gun from Cabrera Sr.’s house. In August 2008, the Trial Court issued two decisions 

denying the motions. See Cabrera Motion for Leave to Interview Jurors, 984 A.2d 149 (Del. 

Super. 2008); Cabrera Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery, 2008 WL 3853998 (Del. Super. 

Aug. 14, 2008). 

180 Consent to Search Form, Cabrera Ex. 6 at 0013A. 

181 Cabrera Sentencing, 2002 WL 484641, at *7 (“Mr. Cabrera, Sr. told the police his son knew 

[Cabrera Sr.] had a gun.”). 

182 See State Lead Investigating Officer’s Aff., Cabrera Ex. 16 at 0059–70. State Lead 

Investigating Officer’s affidavit to obtain a search warrant provided: 
56

Stephanie Cabrera testified that she married Cabrera in December 1994, and 

that the two lived together until October 1995 in an apartment (“Cabrera Marital 

Apartment”) in an apartment building (“Apartment Building”).183 According to 

Stephanie’s testimony, Cabrera remained in the Cabrera Marital Apartment with 

Reyes after Stephanie moved out. Stephanie testified that, at that time, Reyes had 

been living with Cabrera and Stephanie for a month or two. Stephanie Cabrera 

testified that Cabrera moved out of the Cabrera Marital Apartment in the fall of 

1996 and into the basement of Cabrera Sr.’s home.184

 

The police executed the Cabrera Sr. Search Warrant on April 4, 1997. 

During the search the police seized personal property belonging to Cabrera, 

including belts and a bed sheet that were later admitted into evidence at the 

Rockford Park Trial. In closing arguments at the Rockford Park Trial, the State 

relied on Cabrera’s knowledge of the 38 Special Gun’s location, and Cabrera’s 

ability to possess and control the 38 Special Gun to argue that Cabrera had access 

to the 38 Special Gun at the time of Vaughn’s and Rowe’s murders.185

 

Your affiant can state that on 20 March [19]97, Wilmington Police Detectives 

responded to 302 N. Franklin Street, Wilmington[,] Delaware in regards to a 

homicide investigation, unrelated to this mater . . . . Mr. Cabrera [Sr.] further said 

that the only people who had keys to his residence that could have access to the 

gun was his son, Luis Cabrera and [Cabrera’s] friend, Luis Reyes. 

Id. at 0062.

183 Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1261. 

184 Id. at 1261; Cabrera Sentencing, 2002 WL 484641, at *7. 

185 Closing Arg. Tr. 2/8/2001 at 17:18–19:1–16. 
57

 Cabrera Trial Counsel testified about the strategic decision not to seek 

suppression of the 38 Special Gun as follows: 

CABRERA RULE 61 COUNSEL: Do you [Cabrera Trial Counsel] 

recall considering whether or not to move to suppress the [38 Special 

G]un that had been seized from Mr. Cabrera [Sr.’s] residence? 

CABRERA TRIAL COUNSEL: I don’t believe we did. 

CABRERA RULE 61 COUNSEL: Do you recall the reasons why? 

Let me back up. You don’t recall considering it, or you did consider it 

and decided not to? 

CABRERA TRIAL COUNSEL: I know we did not file [a motion to 

suppress]. I believe we talked about it. And the issues were, one, it 

wasn’t [Cabrera’s] . . . [38 Special G]un [and Cabrera] was the one on 

trial. We . . . did not want to give any indication that we were stating 

that was his [38 Special G]un. Our defense was it wasn’t [Cabrera’s 

38 Special G]un. [Cabrera] didn’t have a [38 Special G]un, he had no 

access to it. Plus, my recollection is I’m not sure that [Cabrera] was 

actually living there, and, therefore, [Cabrera] may not have had 

standing. So it was basically we didn’t think [Cabrera] had standing, 

plus we didn’t want to have to admit that it was [Cabrera’s 38 Special 

G]un.” 186

Cabrera Trial Counsel also explained that it didn’t matter whether or not Cabrera 

knew or did not know about the location of the 38 Special Gun because the defense 

theory was that Cabrera did not have a 38 Special Gun.

187

 

The 38 Special Gun was seized with the consent of Cabrera Sr., the owner of 

the residence and the owner of the gun. The United States and Delaware 

 

186 Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/23/2012 at 59:10–23–60:1–5 (emphasis added). 

187 Id. at 61:3–5. “It all depends on what your defense is. And if your defense is not guilty, I 

didn’t do it, I didn’t have a gun . . . you don’t want to leave the door open to any other 

interpretation.” Id. at 61:10–14. 
58

Constitutions protect the right of persons to be secure from “unreasonable searches 

and seizures.”188 Searches and seizures are per se unreasonable, in the absences of 

exigent circumstances, unless authorized by a warrant supported by probable 

cause.

189 However, warrantless searches conducted pursuant to a valid consent, 

qualify as a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.190 Consent to search 

is valid if given voluntarily and if the person giving consent has the authority to do 

so.

191 Here, Cabrera Sr. had the authority to consent to the search of his residence 

and did so. Indeed, Cabrera Sr. lead the police to his gun kept within his residence. 

Cabrera Trial Counsel has articulated a reasonable trial strategy that was 

inconsistent with seeking suppression of the 38 Special Gun. Cabrera cannot 

satisfy the first prong of Strickland with respect to this claim. 

VIII. CABRERA IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF IN CONNECTION 

WITH HIS CHALLENGES TO THE BELT EVIDENCE

On April 4, 1997, a search of Cabrera Sr.’s residence yielded multiple belts 

from the basement, where Cabrera resided from time to time. On January 9, 2001, 

the first day of jury selection for the Rockford Park Trial, the Medical Examiner 

for the State of Delaware (“Medical Examiner”) conducted a comparison of the 

belts seized from Cabrera Sr.’s residence to the photographs of Rowe’s upper torso 

 

188 U.S. Const. amend. IV; Del. Const. art. I, § 6. 

189 Hanna v. State, 591 A.2d 158, 162 (Del. 1991). 

190 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 221–22 (1973). 

191 Id. at 222. 
59

pattern injuries. It was the opinion of the Medical Examiner that the distinct 

pattern on the buckle of one of the belts (“Patterned Belt Buckle”) taken from the 

basement of Cabrera Sr.’s house could have caused the markings Rowe’s upper 

torso. 

At the lunch recess that same day, the State informed Cabrera Trial Counsel 

that the State intended seek the admission into evidence of the results of the 

Medical Examiner’s belt-to-injuries comparison (“Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury 

Presentation”). The State formerly disclosed its proposed Patterned Belt BuckleInjury Presentation by letter dated January 10, 2001: 

As a follow up to the State’s discovery response dated July 5, 2000, 

the State offers the following . . . . It is anticipated that [Medical 

Examiner] will testify in a descriptive fashion about the injuries 

[sustained by Rowe] . . . . We do not anticipate soliciting opinions 

about the instrument of causation. 

As described to you orally on January 9th, [Medical Examiner] 

examined the metal tip belts from [Cabrera Sr.’s residence]. That 

examination was conducted on the morning on January 9th . . . . With 

respect to one of the belts, the patterns and measurements match 

[Rowe’s] injuries . . . . That belt was consistent with the pattern 

injuries and accordingly could have caused [Rowe’s] injuries. 

[Medical Examiner] will not testify that the belt did in fact cause the 

injuries.192

 

 On January 17, 2001, during the Rockford Park Trial, Cabrera Trial Counsel 

moved to exclude the Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation on the grounds 

that the timeliness of the State’s disclosure was a discovery violation, and that 

 

192 Letter from State to Cabrera Trial Counsel dated Jan. 10, 2001, Cabrera Ex. 34 at 0174. 
60

there was no evidence to associate the Patterned Belt Buckle with Cabrera at the 

time of the Rockford Park Murders.193 Cabrera Trial Counsel reminded the Trial 

Court that, in May 2000, after a third conference discussing discovery issues, 

Cabrera Trial Counsel made a detailed discovery request to determine all of the 

expert testimony the State would offer at the Rockford Park Trial. The Trial Court 

ruled that the Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation was inadmissible because 

the State could not link the Patterned Belt Buckle to Cabrera.194

 

 One week later, the State proffered a witness, Mileka Mathis, to testify that 

Cabrera owned the Patterned Belt Buckle at the time of the Rockford Park 

Murders. The Trial Court reconsidered its prior ruling on the admissibility of the 

Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation and ruled that the Patterned Belt BuckleInjury Presentation—including the Patterned Belt Buckle itself—was admissible if 

authenticated and if the State established a link between the Patterned Belt Buckle 

and the injuries sustained on Rowe’s upper torso. The Trial Court then recessed 

the Rockford Park Trial for one week so that Cabrera Trial Counsel could attempt 

to locate someone who could serve as a witness to rebut the State’s Patterned Belt 

Buckle-Injury Presentation and the testimony of Mathis. 

 By letter dated January 30, 2001, Cabrera Trial Counsel requested that the 

Trial Court require the evidence to be presented as follows: 

 

193 Cabrera Trial Counsel Mot. in Limine Tr. 1/17/2001 at 13:11–13, 18:2–9. 

194 Id. at 32:1–38:1–18. 
61

In light of the [Trial] Court’s ruling that the [Patterned Belt Buckle] 

and the photographic overlays are admissible, we spoke with a 

photographer and [defense expert witness] Dr. Hameli. In addition, 

[Cabrera Trial Counsel] performed some research and concluded that 

the photographic array (in and of itself) was “scientific” in nature and, 

therefore, needed to qualify under the Delaware Supreme Courts 

acceptance of the holdings in Daubert . . . . In last Friday’s office 

conference, [Cabrera Trial Counsel] intimated that a motion would be 

filed regarding the admissibility of the [Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury 

Comparison] evidence. Obviously, no issue had been presented to the 

[Trial] Court and, therefore, the [Trial] Court was not asked to rule on 

any particular issue. Nevertheless, the [Trial] Court did hypothesize 

that [Medical Examiner]’s testimony may be necessary in order to 

establish the basis for admission under Daubert. 

After having reviewed the proffered evidence with Dr. Hameli, 

[Cabrera Trial Counsel] feel[s] duty bound to advise the [Trial] Court 

that the methodology employed by the Medical Examiner’s Office is, 

in fact, a readily accepted practice in the field of forensic pathology . . 

. . [Cabrera Trial Counsel] believe[s] that, without [Medical 

Examiner]’s explanations, the jury would be left with an incomplete 

picture of the value of the testimony. More directly, [Cabrera Trial 

Counsel] believe[s] that, absent expert analysis, the photographic 

overlay would be simply misleading to the jury and would leave room 

for inappropriate speculation. 

All this being said, the defense does not waive its objection to the 

admissibility of the [Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation] but, 

rather, seeks the most appropriate manner for the presentation of the 

evidence . . . . The State has been advised of [Cabrera]’s continuing 

objection to the admissibility of the [Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury 

Presentation], as well as [Cabrera]’s proposed presentation of the 

evidence.195

 

 The Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation was made at the Rockford 

Park Trial, according to the parameters requested by Cabrera Trial Counsel, 

 

195 Letter from Cabrera Trial Counsel to the Trial Court dated Jan. 30, 2001, Cabrera Ex. 43 at 

0208–09 (emphasis added). 
62

including presentation by Cabrera’s expert witness, Dr. Hameli, who testified 

contrary to Medical Examiner’s Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation. Dr. 

Hameli testified that Medical Examiner’s belt comparison was difficult because the 

Patterned Belt Buckle was three-dimensional while the photo overlays were twodimensional.196 Dr. Hameli also testified that there was just as many 

inconsistencies as consistencies between the Patterned Belt Buckle and the photo 

overlays and discussed the inconsistencies in detail.197 

A. Challenge to the State’s Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation as a 

Discovery Violation

 On direct appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court considered Cabrera’s claim 

that the State violated its discovery obligations with respect to its Patterned Belt 

Buckle-Injury Presentation. The Supreme Court concluded that, although the State 

did violate discovery rules by failing to produce the Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury 

Presentation in a timely manner, the Trial Court properly exercised its broad 

discretion to fashion a remedy for the State’s discovery violation.198 The Delaware 

Supreme Court also concluded that Cabrera did not suffer prejudice from the 

State’s discovery violation; Cabrera Trial Counsel presented an expert rebuttal 

witness; the State authenticated the Patterned Belt Buckle; and because the police 

 

196 Trial Tr. 2/7/2001 at 70:6–15. 

197 Id. at 73:16–80:1–15. 

198 Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1259, 1263 (concluding that the Trial Court did not 

abuse its discretion is admitting into evidence the Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation). 
63

seized the Patterned Belt Buckle from the basement of Cabrera Sr.’s home among 

Cabrera’s personal effects, it was linked to Cabrera with or without the testimony 

of Mathis.199

 

 Therefore, Cabrera’s claim is merely a renewal of a formerly adjudicated 

claim and is procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(4). Cabrera’s Rule 61 motion 

lacks any new legal or factual information that warrants reconsideration in the 

interest of justice.

B. Challenge to the Delayed Disclosure of Mathis as a Witness

Cabrera argues that the State’s delayed disclosure of Mathis as a witness 

resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial and that the Trial Court’s grant of a oneweek recess in the middle of the Rockford Park Trial did not alleviate the 

prejudice. Cabrera asserts that the delayed disclosure of Mathis was particularly 

prejudicial because it occurred at the end of the State’s case-in-chief, after Cabrera 

Trial Counsel had already formulated its defense strategy. Cabrera maintains that 

if the State had disclosed the Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation and Mathis 

at the time the Trial Court ordered disclosure, then Cabrera Trial Counsel could 

have formulated a defense strategy that took the entirety of the State’s Patterned 

Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation and Mathis testimony into consideration. 

 

199 Id. at 1263–65. 
64

 Cabrera’s claim is merely a renewal of a formerly adjudicated claim and is 

procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(4). Cabrera’s Rule 61 motion lacks any new 

legal or factual information that warrants reconsideration in the interest of justice. 

C. Associated Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

 Cabrera cannot demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to 

this claim. Cabrera Trial Counsel presented specific, repeated objections to each 

aspect of the State’s Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation throughout the 

Rockford Park Trial and upon direct appeal.200 Accordingly, Cabrera Trial 

Counsel’s representation with respect to its objections did not fall below a standard 

of reasonableness.

 Also, contrary to Cabrera’s claim, Cabrera Trial Counsel was not ineffective 

for failing to file a Daubert motion challenging the scientific method behind the 

Medical Examiner’s Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation by photographic 

overlay. In fact, Cabrera Trial Counsel made a strategic decision not to request a 

Daubert hearing. Cabrera Trial Counsel’s strategic decision not to file a Daubert 

motion offered the full-picture of the State’s Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury 

Presentation to the jury, including the inconsistencies behind the methodology of 

 

200 See Cabrera Trial Counsel Mot. in Limine Tr. 1/17/2001 at 13:11–13, 18:2–9; Trial Tr. 

1/24/2001 at 28:19–31:1–4, 42:2–14 (objecting to the State’s late disclosure of its Patterned Belt 

Buckle-Injury Presentation); Letter from Cabrera Trial Counsel to the Trial Court dated Jan. 30, 

2001, Cabrera Ex. 43 at 0208–09 (explaining that Cabrera Trial Counsel still objected to the 

admissibility of the State’s Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation); Cabrera Direct Appeal, 

840 A.2d at 1262 (noting that Cabrera renewed his objections to the State’s Patterned Belt 

Buckle-Injury Presentation on direct appeal). 
65

the State’s Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation, while also avoiding 

speculation by the jury. Cabrera Trial Counsel’s strategy to rebut the State’s 

Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation did not fall below an objective standard 

of reasonableness. Accordingly, Cabrera cannot satisfy the first prong of 

Strickland.

 Prior to the Rockford Park Trial, the State presented State witness Mathis 

with a belt line-up, which included the Patterned Belt Buckle. With respect to the 

belt line-up, Cabrera claims ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to 

this evidence. However, decisional law does not support the evidentiary challenge, 

which Cabrera now claims that Cabrera Trial Counsel should have presented. 

Accordingly, Cabrera Trial Counsel had no obligation to object to the State’s use 

of a belt lineup including the Patterned Belt Buckle because there is no law 

applying the principles of “pre-trial identifications of suspects” to “pre-trial 

identifications of inanimate objects.”201 The first prong of Strickland is not met. 

Moreover, even if Cabrera Trial Counsel acted unreasonably with respect to the 

 

201 See Hughes v. State, 735 So. 2d 238, 261 (Miss. 1999) (concluding that “a line-up of 

inanimate objects is not subject to the same constitutional restrictions which burden eyewitness 

identifications of criminal defendants.”); Johnson v. Sublett, 63 F.3d 926, 932 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(“There is no authority holding that a defendant's due process right to reliable identification 

procedures extends beyond normal authenticity and identification procedures for physical 

evidence offered by the prosecution.”); Com. v. Simmons, 417 N.E.2d 1193, 1195 (Mass. 1981) 

(“No court to our knowledge has applied principles to pretrial identifications of suspects to 

pretrial identifications of inanimate objects.”). 
66

Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation, Cabrera cannot show that he suffered 

prejudice as a result. 

 Therefore, Cabrera’s postconviction claim that the State’s late disclosure of 

the Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation violated Cabrera’s right to a fair trial 

is procedurally barred and Cabrera’s accompanying claims of ineffective assistance 

of counsel are without merit. 

D. Claims Related to State’s Witness Mathis 

 

 A variety of Cabrera’s postconviction claims relate to Mathis as a State’s 

witness. At the Rockford Park Trial, Mathis was called by the State as a witness 

and testified that she met Cabrera around 1994. Mathis was hesitant but stated that 

she and Cabrera had a sexual relationship “[s]poradically over . . . a year or 

two.”202 Mathis admitted that she was familiar with the clothing Cabrera wore, 

generally. The State showed Mathis the Patterned Belt Buckle and asked “can you 

tell us what - - whether or not you have ever seen that type of belt before?”203 

Mathis confirmed that that she had seen that type of belt before and, after 

additional questioning, Mathis testified that the Patterned Belt Buckle “stood out . . 

. . as something [Cabrera] would have worn back in the day, back then.”204

 

 

202 Trial Tr. 1/31/2001 at 32:19–20. 

203 Id. at 35:5–7. 

204 Id. at 35:7–36:1–9. 
67

At that point, the Trial Court called a sidebar conference to discuss the Trial 

Court’s observations regarding Mathis’ reluctance to testify.205 In response, the 

State explained, “I think the problem here, Your Honor . . . [Mathis] believes she is 

the mother of one of Luis Cabrera’s children. She also learned after the fact that 

she is the daughter of . . . Rowe’s father. The dynamics make it very difficult for 

her here.”206 According to the State, Mathis learned this information after the 

Rockford Park Murders. 

Cabrera Trial Counsel began cross-examination. Mathis testified that State 

Lead Investigating Officer contacted her seven or eight times by phone and two or 

three times in person over the previous three to four weeks. According to Mathis, 

approximately two weeks before trial began, State Lead Investigating Officer 

showed Mathis a lineup of belts seized from the basement of Cabrera Sr.’s home. 

Mathis testified that at least one belt was the style Cabrera could have worn but she 

could not be sure if Cabrera actually wore, or even owned, the belt in question at 

the time of the Rockford Park Murders. 

Cabrera was convicted on February 11, 2001. Thereafter, sometime in the 

summer of 2001, Mathis and Cabrera began writing each other letters. In fact, 

 

205 Id. at 38:1–5. The Trial Court explained, “It is [the Trial Court’s] observation and it is 

reasonably obvious to [the Trial Court] that this young lady does not wish to be in this courtroom 

testifying in this case.” Id. at 6–8. 

206 Id. at 39:7–13. 
68

Mathis wrote Cabrera nearly twenty (20) letters in just over one month.207 In the 

meantime, in or about August 2001, Mathis began calling Cabrera Trial Counsel’s 

office. After weeks of missed calls, on September 4, 2001, Mathis informed 

Cabrera Trial Counsel that her testimony at the Rockford Park Trial was false, that 

State Lead Investigating Officer encouraged her to testify falsely, and that now she 

was trying to make things right.208 Mathis met with Cabrera Trial Counsel on 

September 17, 2001 and September 25, 2001. Both interviews took place in the 

presence of Defense Investigator. 

The September 17 interview was recorded and transcribed and is part of the 

postconviction record. Mathis discussed certain letters she wrote to Cabrera. 

Specifically, Mathis explained that she wrote Cabrera an apology letter for falsely 

testifying at the Rockford Park Trial. According to Mathis, State Lead 

Investigating Officer called Mathis one evening to discuss Cabrera’s case and 

encouraged Mathis to testify untruthfully. According to Mathis, State Lead 

Investigating Officer suggested that he was aware Cabrera fathered one of Mathis’ 

children and other details of Mathis’ personal life, which information State Lead 

Investigating Officer then used to solicit specific testimony from Mathis. For 

instance, Mathis said State Lead Investigating Officer knew about her relationship 

to Rowe and suggested that testimony against Cabrera could help bring closure to 

 

207 See Cabrera Motion for New Trial, 2003 WL 25763727, at *12. 

208 See Aff. of John P. Deckers, Cabrera Ex. 68 at 0304–05.
69

the Rowe family. Mathis explained that State Lead Investigating Officer also 

knew that Mathis’ brother was serving a life sentence in Florida and that it was 

difficult for the Mathis family to visit her brother. According to Mathis, State 

Lead Investigating Officer suggested that State Lead Investigating Officer could 

get Mathis’ brother transferred to Delaware. Mathis also described the visit to her 

home by State Lead Investigating Officer when he showed her belts seized from 

Cabrera Sr.’s house. 

On September 25, Mathis returned for a second interview. Mathis declined 

to have the September 25 interview taped or transcribed. However, Defense 

Investigator promptly summarized Mathis’ statements at the conclusion of the 

interview. Defense Investigator’s notes are part of the postconviction record. 

According to Defense Investigator’s summary, Mathis repeated that she testified 

during the Rockford Park Trial at State Lead Investigating Officer’s urging. 

Mathis stated that she knew State Lead Investigating Officer one to two years 

before Cabrera’s arrest. She described a several-year periodic sexual relationship 

she had with State Lead Investigating Officer because she wanted “a cop as an 

ally.” Mathis also said that she had sexual relationships with other officers 

introduced to her by State Lead Investigating Officer. 

As a result of the information gleaned from the interviews with Mathis, 

Cabrera Trial Counsel filed a motion for a new trial in July 2002. As a result, the 
70

Delaware Supreme Court stayed Cabrera’s direct appeal pending the resolution of 

the motion. On December 19, 2002, the Court held a hearing on Cabrera’s motion 

for a new trial. Both Mathis and State Lead Investigating Officer appeared but 

only State Lead Investigating Officer testified. 

State Lead Investigating Officer denied knowing Mathis had a brother 

imprisoned in Florida and denied offering to have Mathis’ imprisoned brother 

transferred to Delaware. State Lead Investigating Officer also denied ever having 

sex with Mathis or suggesting that Mathis have sex with any of his friends. 

 Mathis refused to testify at the hearing. Instead, Mathis invoked her right to 

remain silent on the advice of counsel. Cabrera Trial Counsel argued that the trial 

court should nonetheless admit Mathis’ statements from the September 17 and 

September 25 interviews into evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule. On 

April 3, 2003, the Trial Court issued a decision detailing why Mathis’ recantation 

statements were inadmissible as hearsay and denying Cabrera’s motion for a new 

trial.209 On direct appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court agreed that Mathis’ 

statements were inadmissible hearsay and that Mathis’ out-of-court-statements 

lacked corroboration or sufficient “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.”210

 

 

209 Cabrera Motion for New Trial, 2003 WL 25763727 (Del. Super. Apr. 3, 2003). 

210 Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1267–68. 
71

In anticipation of a postconviction evidentiary hearing, Mathis signed a 

sworn affidavit (“Mathis’ 2012 Affidavit”),211 detailing her relationship with State 

Lead Investigating Officer and confirming that State Lead Investigating Officer 

coached her Rockford Park Trial testimony. Cabrera Rule 61 Counsel asked the 

State if it would agree to the admissibility of Mathis’ 2012 Affidavit and, if not, 

Cabrera Rule Counsel expressed its intent to seek an out-of-state deposition of 

Mathis. The State did not respond to Cabrera Rule 61 Counsel. Instead, on 

October 8, 2012, Cabrera Trial Counsel filed a motion to preclude Cabrera from 

presenting any further evidence concerning Mathis. The Court granted the State’s 

motion.212 

1. Claims Related to Whether Mathis Should Have Been Granted 

Immunity by the State in Connection with the Postconviction Challenge 

to Her Testimony 

 Cabrera argues that his constitutional rights to compulsory process and due 

process were violated because the State did not give Mathis immunity to testify 

during the evidentiary hearing on Cabrera’s motion for a new trial. According to 

Cabrera, it is a criminal defendant’s right to subpoena a witness and present that 

witness in his defense. Cabrera argues that the State substantially interfered with 

this right because it made thinly veiled threats to prosecute Mathis for perjury to 

 

211 Mathis’ 2012 Aff., Cabrera Ex. 76 at 0685–0691. 

212 See Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/9/2012 at 106:20–21; Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/10/2012 at 3:14–15 (“I don’t see 

any reason for any evidence.”). 
72

induce Mathis into invoking her privilege against self-incrimination. In support of 

this claim, Cabrera relies upon Mathis’ 2012 Affidavit in which Mathis states, “If I 

had been given immunity, I would have recanted my [Rockford Park T]rial 

testimony.”213

Cabrera’s immunity claim is not subject to Rule 61(i)(4). On direct appeal, 

the Supreme Court considered whether the Trial Court properly ruled that Mathis’ 

recantation statements were inadmissible, not whether the State should have 

granted Mathis immunity to testify regarding her statements. Accordingly, 

Cabrera’s pending immunity-based postconviction claim was not formerly 

adjudicated and therefore, not barred by Rule 61(i)(4). On the other hand, Cabrera 

did not assert this immunity claim on direct appeal and, therefore, the immunitybased claim is subject to procedural considerations under Rule 61(i)(3). 

Accordingly, the Court shall consider the merits of Cabrera’s constitutional claims 

and accompanying claims of ineffective assistance of counsel because ineffective 

claims are not subject to the procedural bar of Rule 61(i)(3). 

Cabrera presents a constitutional challenge and two claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel related to Cabrera’s immunity claim. First, Cabrera asserts 

that Cabrera Trial Counsel’s failure to argue that the State should grant Mathis 

immunity to testify in support of the motion for a new trial was ineffective 

 

213 See Mathis’ 2012 Aff., Cabrera Ex. 76 at 0685, ¶ 2. 
73

assistance of counsel. Second, Cabrera argues that Cabrera Trial Counsel failed to 

investigate corroborating evidence for Mathis’ out-of-court statements that her 

Rockford Park Trial testimony was false and that State Lead Investigating Officer 

had coached her testimony. 

Cabrera cannot establish that he was deprived of a “substantial constitutional 

right [and therefore] entitled to any [postconviction] relief.”214 As part of his 

constitutional claim, Cabrera cites persuasive authority standing for the proposition 

that “the State may not use threats or intimidating tactics that substantially interfere 

with a witness’s decision to testify for a defendant.”215 First, a review of the 

record suggests Mathis invoked her privilege against self-incrimination at the 

advice of counsel and not in response to any threats of prosecution for perjury from 

the State. Second, because the Trial Court determined that Mathis’ Rockford Park 

Trial testimony was true and her recantation statements were false, Cabrera is 

unable to satisfy his burden of showing Mathis’ trial testimony was false in order 

to justify a new trial. For the aforementioned reasons, Cabrera’s claim that his 

constitutional rights to compulsory process and due process were violated because 

the State did not give Mathis immunity to testify is rejected by this Court. 

 

 

214 Younger, 580 A.2d at 555. 

215 State v. Feaster, 877 A.2d 229, 245 (N.J. 2005). 
74

2. Ineffective Assistance Claims Related to Mathis in Connection with 

the Postconviction Challenge to Her Testimony at Rockford Park Trial 

Cabrera argues that Cabrera Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to 

investigate Mathis, or question her during voir dire, before she testified at the 

Rockford Park Trial. According to Cabrera, in failing to investigate Mathis, 

Cabrera Trial Counsel failed to learn that, notwithstanding her testimony, Mathis 

did not have a long-term relationship with Cabrera; she could not identify the type 

of clothing Cabrera wore at the time of the Rockford Park Murders; and she was 

engaged in a long-term sexual relationship with State Lead Investigating Officer. 

However, Cabrera Trial Counsel did investigate Mathis. In fact, Cabrera 

Trial Counsel’s investigator, Defense Investigator, interviewed Mathis on January 

23, 2001. Defense Investigator’s report on the interview provides: 

MILEKA MATHIS interview provides her relationship with 

CABRERA and main police interest regarding belt buckles. She can’t 

ID any particular belt. CABRERA is father of one of her children. 

[CABRERA] doesn’t know this. She is to meet with AG’s office this 

afternoon for interview. She was Rowe’s brother but never knew him. 

She offers nothing regarding seeing ROWE or SAUNDERS prior to 

their disappearance. Also, nothing said to her by CABRERA re: the 

murders.216

Cabrera’s postconviction claim relies on hindsight and unauthenticated, 

alleged recantation statements by Mathis. Cabrera’s argument assumes that, 

 

216 Defense Investigator’s Report to Cabrera Trial Counsel (Jan. 23, 2001), Cabrera Ex. 39 at 

0195. See also Defense Investigator’s Report to Cabrera Trial Counsel (Jan. 23, 2001), Cabrera 

Ex. 40 at 0196–97. 
75

because Mathis did not offer Defense Investigator or Cabrera Trial Counsel the 

information she now asserts years after Cabrera’s conviction, it can only mean that 

Cabrera Trial Counsel failed to investigate her properly. Cabrera’s claim ignores 

the fact that Cabrera Counsel did interview Mathis. This Court cannot and will not 

find that Cabrera Trial Counsel acted objectively unreasonably because Mathis 

responded to their interview questions in a manner consistent with Mathis’ 

Rockford Park Trial testimony but inconsistent with her unreliable and 

inadmissible recantation statements. Cabrera cannot satisfy the Strickland test. 

Cabrera argues that Cabrera Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to 

object to, or seek to strike, Mathis’ Rockford Park Trial testimony–and the State’s 

Patterned Belt Buckle-Injury Presentation subsequently admitted–based on the 

speculative nature of her testimony. Cabrera argues that Mathis only testified that 

the Patterned Belt Buckle presented at the Rockford Park Trial was the type of belt 

Cabrera would wear and not that Cabrera actually owned the Patterned Belt Buckle 

at the time of the Rockford Park Murders.217 Cabrera’s claim does not satisfy 

Strickland because even if Cabrera Trial Counsel should have objected to the 

speculative nature of Mathis’ testimony, Cabrera cannot show that he suffered 

prejudice as a result of Cabrera Trial Counsel’s failure to object. As the Delaware 

Supreme Court explained on direct appeal, “Mathis' trial testimony was weak and 

 

217 See Trial Tr. 1/31/2001 at 46:2–7, 47:2–5. 
76

related to only one small link among several implicating Cabrera in the crime[,]”218

and more importantly: 

[P]olice had seized the belt from among Cabrera's personal effects at 

Cabrera's father's residence, where Cabrera was living at the time of 

the seizure. The required nexus may be established by circumstantial 

evidence. Seizure of the belt from among Cabrera's personal effects 

sufficiently demonstrated a connection between Cabrera and the 

belt.219

Therefore, regardless of Cabrera Trial Counsel’s lack of direct objection to the 

nature of Mathis’ testimony, the State presented enough circumstantial evidence to 

link Cabrera to the Patterned Belt Buckle. Cabrera cannot satisfy the two prongs 

of Strickland. 

3. Ineffective Assistance Claims Related to Mathis in Connection with 

the Postconviction Challenge to Her Testimony at the Postconviction 

Hearing 

Cabrera argues that Cabrera Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to 

argue that Mathis’ out-of-court statements were not hearsay because they were not 

being offered for the truth. Rather, Cabrera contends Mathis’ out-of-court 

statements were prior inconsistent statements being offered to impeach her 

credibility. Cabrera’s argument attempts to avoid the fact that Mathis made out-ofcourt statements after the Rockford Park Trial and post-trial statements, by 

definition, are not prior statements. Cabrera contends that this Court should 

 

218 Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1268. 

219 Id. at 1264. 
77

nonetheless consider Mathis’ post-trial statements as prior statements because 

“Mathis’ statements preceded her expected testimony at the evidentiary hearing on 

Mr. Cabrera’s motion for a new trial.”220 Cabrera offers no supporting law in 

support of his contention that Cabrera Trial Counsel’s conduct was objectively 

unreasonable. 

Cabrera argues that Cabrera Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to 

argue the admissibility of Mathis’ out-of-court statements under 11 Del. C. § 3507. 

Section 3507(a) provides, “In a criminal prosecution, the voluntary out-of-court 

prior statement of a witness who is present and subject to cross-examination may 

be used as affirmative evidence with substantive independent testimonial value.” 

However, § 3507 was not applicable in this case because Mathis was not subject to 

cross-examination. As the Delaware Supreme Court explained on direct appeal, 

“Mathis became unavailable to testify when she invoked her Fifth Amendment 

privilege at the evidentiary hearing.”221

 

The record reflects that Cabrera Trial Counsel tried to corroborate Mathis’ 

recantation statements. In its affidavit, Cabrera Trial Counsel stated it “ma[de] 

efforts to corroborate Ms. Mathis’ various statements – not only the [Patterned Belt 

Buckle] claim, but all aspects of her statement.”222 Cabrera Trial Counsel stated 

 

220 Cabrera’s Reply 84 (Oct. 3, 2014) (emphasis added). 

221 Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1267. 

222 Cabrera Trial Counsel Aff. ¶ 16. 
78

that they were unsuccessful in their attempts to corroborate Mathis’ recantation 

statements because Mathis persistently blocked access to persons who might have 

corroborated her out-of-court statements.223 Cabrera Trial Counsel explained that 

Mathis’ actions led it to believe Mathis’ statements “were curiously suspect.”224

Cabrera cannot satisfy the Strickland test for either of the two ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims related to Mathis. Cabrera’s argument focuses on the 

prejudicial effect of Mathis’ failure to testify at the evidentiary hearing rather than 

showing Cabrera Trial Counsel acted unreasonably. Failure to prove either prong 

of Strickland will render the claim unsuccessful. While Mathis’ testimony may 

have been prejudicial, Cabrera cannot demonstrate that the result of the proceeding 

would have been different if she had not testified. Moreover, Cabrera Trial 

Counsel cannot demonstrate that the performance of Cabrera Trial Counsel fell 

below an objective standard of reasonableness. Accordingly, Cabrera has not met 

the Strickland standard to demonstrate his claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel with respect to Mathis. 

4. Claims Related to Alleged Overreaching by State Lead Investigating 

Officer with Respect to Rockford Park Trial Testimony by Mathis 

First, Cabrera asks this Court to reconsider the Trial Court’s decision to 

preclude the introduction of evidence concerning Mathis and her Rockford Park 

 

223 Id.

224 Id.
79

Trial testimony because Cabrera’s claims—as they relate to State Lead 

Investigating Officer and perjured testimony—were not litigated previously and 

lacked a developed factual record. Cabrera relies upon Mathis’ statements during 

the September 17 and September 25 interviews, and Mathis’ 2012 Affidavit in 

support of his contentions that State Lead Investigating Officer coached Mathis to 

lie under oath and that the State knowingly used perjured testimony. Second, upon 

consideration of Mathis’ 2012 Affidavit, Cabrera asks that his conviction 

overturned because his conviction is the result of perjured evidence and, therefore, 

must be set aside because there is a reasonable likelihood that the perjured 

testimony could have affected the judgment. 

In opposition, the State reiterates its position that Cabrera’s claim that 

Mathis gave coerced testimony has been adjudicated and is therefore procedurally 

barred under Rule 61(i)(4). In addition, the State argues that Cabrera’s claim that 

the State knowingly used perjured testimony claim is barred under Rule 61(i)(3) 

because it was not raised on direct appeal. 

First, this Court will not reconsider the Trial Court’s decision to preclude the 

introduction of evidence relating to Mathis and her Rockford Park Trial testimony. 

This Court is satisfied that the Mathis issues have been adjudicated in connection 

with Cabrera’s motion for a new trial and on direct appeal with the Delaware 

Supreme Court. As discussed above, at the December 19, 2002 evidentiary 
80

hearing on Cabrera’s motion for a new trial, Mathis invoked her rights under the 

Fifth Amendment when asked if she testified truthfully at the Rockford Park Trial. 

However, State Lead Investigating Officer testified at the hearing and denied all of 

Mathis’ statements. Then, on direct appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court 

specifically agreed with the Trial Court’s determination that Mathis’ out-of-court 

statements lacked corroboration and sufficient “circumstantial guarantees of 

trustworthiness.”225

Furthermore, Cabrera offers no new factual or legal developments to warrant 

this Court’s reconsideration. Despite the fact that it was not proffered until 2012, 

Mathis’ 2012 Affidavit fails to qualify as a new factual for purposes of the interests 

of justice exception because it offers information available—and in fact 

presented—during earlier proceedings.226 As the Supreme Court aptly stated in its 

2004 decision, “excluding the [Mathis] evidence does not pose a great risk of 

miscarriage of justice, because Mathis’ [Rockford Park T]rial testimony was weak 

and related to only one small link among several implicating Cabrera in the 

crime.”227 Accordingly, Cabrera’s request that this Court reconsider its decision to 

 

225 Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1267–68 (noting the lack of corroborating circumstances 

to support the truthfulness of Mathis’ statements and that nothing in the record indicated that 

Mathis’ testimony was coerced or coached). 

226 See id. at 1267–68; Flamer, 585 A.2d at 745–46. Cf. Weedon v. State, 750 A.2d 521, 527–29 

(Del. 2000). 

227 Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1268 (emphasis added). 
81

preclude the introduction of evidence concerning Mathis and her Rockford Park 

Trial testimony is hereby denied. 

Second, Cabrera cannot demonstrate that his conviction is based on 

testimony the State knew was perjured and, therefore, Cabrera’s associated claim 

that his conviction should be overturned as a result fails. Not only is this claim 

subject to procedural default under Rule 61(i)(3) because it was not raised on direct 

appeal, but as the Delaware Supreme Court stated: 

In order to meet the first prong, Cabrera had to show that Mathis' trial 

testimony was false. The trial judge ruled that Cabrera failed to carry 

this burden because the hearsay statements were inadmissible and the 

other evidence at the hearing suggested that it was Mathis' 

recantation, and not her trial testimony, that was false.

228

Under these circumstances, and recognizing the limited role of Mathis’ testimony 

at the Rockford Park Trial, Cabrera’s claim that State Lead Investigating Officer

suborned perjured testimony is procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(3) and is 

hereby denied. 

IX. CABRERA’S POSTCONVICTION CLAIMS CHALLENGING 

JURORS ARE PROCEDURALLY BARRED 

A. Challenge to Death Qualification of Jurors is Procedurally Barred by Rule 

61(i)(3) and There was No Miscarriage of Justice or Ineffective Assistance of 

Counsel 

Cabrera argues that the State excused numerous qualified prospective jurors 

for cause based upon the juror’s views on the death penalty in violation of 

 

228 Id. at 1266 (emphasis added). 
82

Cabrera’s constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury drawn from a fair crosssection of the community. Further, Cabrera maintains that the Trial Court’s voir 

dire misrepresented the law, caused unnecessary confusion, and eliminated 

prospective jurors despite indications the juror could perform its juror duties 

properly. 

Cabrera did not challenge the death qualification of jurors during the 

Rockford Park Trial or on direct appeal. Cabrera asserts that his failure to raise 

this issue at the Rockford Park Trial or on appeal is because Cabrera Trial Counsel 

was ineffective. Accordingly, the Court shall consider the merits of Cabrera’s 

accompanying claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because ineffective claims 

are not subject to the procedural bar of Rule 61(i)(3). 

 Rule 61(i)(3) bars relief if the motion includes claims not asserted in prior 

proceedings leading to the final judgment. The procedural bars to postconviction 

relief under Rule 61(i)(3)229 can be overcome if the motion asserts a colorable 

claim that there has been a “miscarriage of justice” as the result of a constitutional 

violation that undermined the fundamental fairness of the proceedings.230 This 

Court is satisfied that there was no miscarriage of justice with respect to jury 

 

229 This exception is also applicable to procedural bars to postconviction relief under Rule 61 

(i)(1) and (2), but those bars are not relevant here. 

230 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5); Younger, 580 A.2d at 555.
83

selection. Moreover, Cabrera has not demonstrated that Cabrera Trial Counsel was 

ineffective with respect to jury selection. 

Cabrera maintains that Cabrera Trial Counsel’s failure to object to the voir 

dire and death qualification of the prospective jurors was ineffective assistance of 

counsel. This claim does not satisfy Strickland. First, Cabrera’s claim merely 

concludes that Cabrera Trial Counsel acted objectively unreasonably for failing to 

raise these objections, which prejudiced Cabrera. Indeed, this claim is conclusory. 

Second, even if Cabrera Trial Counsel did act objectively unreasonably, Cabrera 

cannot demonstrate that he suffered actual prejudice. 

Cabrera argues that striking qualified jurors in violation of the standards 

established in Wainwright v. Witt,

231 and Witherspoon v. Illinois,232 constitutes 

reversible error requiring “the vacation of a death sentence imposed by a jury” 

from which the juror “has been erroneously excluded for cause.”233 Cabrera 

contends that twenty-two (22) prospective jurors were excused for cause on the 

basis of the juror’s view on the death penalty but at least eight (8) of these jurors 

unambiguously stated he or she could nonetheless follow the Trial Court’s 

instructions and the juror’s oath to find the facts impartially and decide the case 

according to the law. The Court finds Cabrera’s argument unpersuasive. The 

 

231 469 U.S. 412 (1985). 

232 391 U.S. 510 (1968). 

233 Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 659 (1987). 
84

Delaware Supreme Court “has consistently upheld as constitutional the death 

qualification process in Delaware.”234 According to Delaware decisional law, 

“justice is not served by allowing persons to sit on a jury in a capital case who are 

unable to render an impartial verdict because of their opposition to the death 

penalty.”235 Even though the jury is not the final arbiters of punishment, it is 

contrary to law to allow a juror to sit as the conscience of the community despite 

personal views that would prevent the juror from impartially performing his or her 

responsibilities.236

 

Moreover, this Court rejects Cabrera’s application of the controlling 

standard for qualifying a jury in a death penalty case. The Delaware Supreme 

Court addressed this issue under similar circumstances in Gattis v. State.

237 As the 

Supreme Court explained, “the standard is not whether, under any conceivable set 

of circumstances, the juror could never recommend the death sentence . . . . [but] 

whether the juror’s views render the juror unable to comply with the trial court’s 

 

234 Hobbs v. State, 538 A.2d 723, 725–26 (Del. 1988) (discussing the jury selection process 

under 11 Del. C. § 3301 and the State’s interest in death qualifying jurors). 

235 Gattis v. State, 697 A.2d 1174, 1181 (Del. 1997). 

236 State v. Cohen, 604 A.2d 846, 855–56 (Del. 1992) (“Any personal views which would 

prevent [jury] members from impartially performing this solemn responsibility in accordance 

with the trial court’s instructions are impermissible and contrary to law.”). See also Gattis, 697 

A.2d at 1181, 1182. 

237 Gattis, 697 A.2d at 1180–82 (discussing a “death-qualified” jury). 
85

instructions and her oath.”238 Upon review of the statements of the three jurors in 

question, the Gattis Court concluded: 

Each of the above three juror candidates expressed unambiguously 

that she would not be able to recommend a sentence of death in this 

case even if the facts and the law so allowed. In our view, [the 

juror’s] statements show that each would be unable to put aside 

personal feelings against the death penalty regardless of the evidence 

or in deference to the rule of law.239

Upon consideration of the record, this Court finds that the eight jurors who 

expressed opposition to the death penalty in question were properly excused for 

cause. Therefore, this Court finds that Cabrera’s constitutional claims and 

accompanying claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to jury 

selection are procedurally barred without exception. 

B. Cabrera’s Challenges to Three Seated Jurors Are Procedurally Barred by 

Rule 61(i)(4) and There was No Miscarriage of Justice or Ineffective 

Assistance of Counsel 

 Cabrera claims that his constitutional right to a verdict by an impartial jury 

was violated as a result of three separate juror-related issues that occurred during 

the Rockford Park Trial. Cabrera claims the Trial Court: (1) failed to declare a 

mistrial-or dismiss Juror No. 8 who overheard someone say “I think [Cabrera’s] 

guilty” during the first few days of the Rockford Park Trial; (2) improperly 

addressed Juror No. 9’s indication that Cabrera’s wife “looked familiar;” and (3) 

 

238 Id. at 1181. 

239 Id. at 1182. 
86

failed to dismiss Juror No. 5 after she indicated potential mental or physical 

instability related to reaching a verdict in Cabrera’s case. 

The Trial Court specifically reviewed and rejected these claims in 2008 in 

connection with Cabrera’s request to conduct ex parte interviews of the jurors on 

the premise that he was entitled to an impartial jury and a fair trial.240 In its 

decision denying Cabrera’s motion to interview the jurors, the Trial Court 

discussed the conduct of Juror Nos. 5, 8, and 9 throughout the Rockford Park Trial, 

which prompted Cabrera to seek leave to interview all of the jurors. The Trial 

Court discussed the Trial Court’s actions at the time of the trial. Furthermore, the 

Trial Court discussed the Rule of Professional Conduct that impeded Cabrera’s 

ability to interview the jurors. The Trial Court denied Cabrera’s motion stating 

that while Delaware’s Rules of Professional Conduct allowed for communication 

with jurors at the Trial Court’s Ruling, such contact was inappropriate in this 

case.

241

 

Accordingly, the Court finds these claims are procedurally barred pursuant 

under Rule 61(i)(4) because these claims have already been adjudicated. Under 

Delaware decisional law, “[t]he determination of a juror’s impartiality is the 

responsibility of the trial judge who has the opportunity to question the juror, 

observe his or her demeanor, and evaluate the ability of the juror to render a fair 

 

240 Cabrera Motion for Leave to Interview Jurors, 984 A.2d at 150. 

241 Id. at 161, 169–70. 
87

verdict.”242 Rule 61(i)(4) bars relief if the motion includes grounds for relief 

formerly adjudicated in any proceeding leading to the judgment of conviction, in 

an appeal, or in a postconviction proceeding. The procedural bar under Rule 

61(i)(4)243 can be overcome if consideration of the claim on its merits is warranted 

in the “interest of justice.” If the postconviction motion is procedurally barred and 

neither exception applies, the Court should dispose of the motion because 

postconviction relief is not “a substitute for direct appeal.”244

 

Cabrera’s Rule 61 motion offers no new legal or factual information that 

warrants reconsideration in the interest of justice. The presentation of these claims 

is merely a restatement of claims already presented to the Trial Court and 

adjudicated. Moreover, because Cabrera Trial Counsel did, in fact, raise these 

challenges at the appropriate time during trial or in the early stages of 

postconviction proceedings, counsel met the objective standard of reasonable 

performance. 

X. CABRERA’S CHALLENGES TO THE ALLEN CHARGE 

ARE PROCEDURALLY BARRED

Around 5:30 p.m. on February 10, 2001, less than two days after 

deliberations began, the jury foreman notified the Trial Court that the jury was in a 

 

242 Weber v. State, 547 A.2d 948, 954 (Del. 1988). 

243 This exception is also applicable to procedural bars to postconviction relief under Rule 61 

(i)(2), but that bar is not relevant here. 

244 Flamer, 585 A.2d at 745. 
88

state of deadlock. At 6:00 p.m. on the same day, the Trial Court instructed the 

jury to stop deliberations. At that time, the Trial Court provided the jury with an 

Allen charge, consistent with requests made by the State and Cabrera Trial 

Counsel. Following the Allen charge, the jury left the courtroom and resumed 

deliberations on the following morning. On February 11, 2001, at 12:45 p.m., the 

jury reached a verdict. The jury found Cabrera guilty of two counts of First 

Degree Murder, two counts of Conspiracy in the First Degree, and other offenses. 

A. Lack of Transition Language245 in Allen Charge 

Cabrera argues that the Trial Court’s failure to include language in reference 

to lesser-included offenses in the Allen charge in its jury instructions and violated 

Cabrera’s constitutional rights. This matter was addressed on the record during an 

office conference with the Trial Court, the State, and Cabrera Trial Counsel.246

 

During the office conference, Cabrera Trial Counsel specifically expressed concern 

regarding the lack of transition language in the Trial Court’s Allen charge. 

However, the Trial Court determined that, because its jury instructions already 

 

245 Transition language informs a jury—which has been instructed on lesser-included offenses—

of the proper procedures under which that jury may consider the lesser-included offenses if, after 

reasonable efforts, the jury cannot agree on the greater offense charged. See Smith v. State, 660 

A.2d 395 (Del. 1995) (TABLE). See also Com. v. Hallman, 67 A.3d 1256, 1263 (Pa. 2013) 

(referring to transition language as a “progression charge”); State v. Labanowski, 816 P.2d 26, 31 

(Wash. 1991) (en banc) (explaining that “transition instructions” are also referred to as “retiring 

instructions” or a “progression charge”). 

246 See Office Conf. Tr. 2/10/2001 at 19:16–30:1–2 (discussing the Allen charge). 
89

included an instruction on accomplice liability, there was no need for additional 

transitional language during the Allen charge. Specifically, the Trial Court stated: 

[T]ransition language at this point is legally inapplicable and 

potentially confusing. Other than what has been stated in Chance, 

[that the jury] ha[s] to decide. If [the jury] can’t decide [Cabrera] is 

not the principal, [then Cabrera] is an accomplice. [The jury] ha[s] to 

look at [Cabrera’s] culpability, his mental culpability what degree it 

is.247

Cabrera’s pending postconviction claim is merely an attempt to reargue an 

adjudicated matter and is therefore procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(4). 

Cabrera’s Rule 61 motion offers no new legal or factual information that warrants 

reconsideration in the interest of justice. Cabrera alleges an accompanying claim 

of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue for transition language. 

However, consistent with prevailing professional norms, Cabrera Trial Counsel did 

request transition language but the Trial Court denied the request. Cabrera’s claim 

is barred and no exception applies. 

B. Coerciveness of the Allen Charge 

Cabrera contends that the Allen charge was unduly coercive and violated his 

right to a unanimous jury verdict in that the Trial Court instructed only jurors in the 

minority to reconsider their position and unduly discussed the economic burden 

involved in retrying the case. Cabrera asserts that such an instruction intimidated 

dissenting jurors and compromised his right to a unanimous jury verdict. 

 

247 Id. at 27:20–28:1–3. 
90

Cabrera did not challenge the Allen charge during the Rockford Park Trial or 

on direct appeal. The claim is therefore procedurally barred by Rule 61(i)(3). This 

procedural bar can be overcome if there was a miscarriage of justice or by a 

successful challenge to the ineffective assistance of counsel. 

This Court finds that there was no miscarriage of justice in instructing the 

jury to continue deliberations. The Trial Court instructions provided, “the [Trial] 

Court does not wish any juror to surrender his or her conscientious convictions . . . 

. each [juror] must decide the case for [them]selves . . . . [and r]emember, at all 

times no juror is expected to yield . . . his or her conscientious conviction . . . . [i]t 

is your duty to agree on a verdict if you can do so without violating juror’s 

individual judgment and conscious.”248 Therefore, the Allen charge included 

language that diminished any potential coercive effect from the minority 

distinction alleged prejudicial by Cabrera.249

Also, Cabrera Trial Counsel’s representation was well within prevailing 

professional norms. Cabrera Trial Counsel explained in connection with 

postconviction proceedings that their request for the Allen charge was an 

 

248 Trial Tr. 2/10/2001 at 32:16–23, 34:9–10 (emphasis added). 

249 Id. at 30:4–35:1–15 (reading of the Allen charge to the jury). See Collins v. State, 56 A.3d 

1012, 1020 (Del. 2012) (“The potential coercive effect of an Allen charge ‘can be eliminated by 

having the charge include an admonition that each individual juror not surrender his or her 

honest convictions and not return any verdict contrary to the dictates of personal conscience.’”) 

(quoting Brown v. State, 369 A.2d 682, 684 (Del. 1976)). 
91

appropriate tactical decision.250 Cabrera Trial Counsel determined that Cabrera 

“had the best chance of success with this jury during this particular trial; Mr. 

Cabrera agreed with that assessment.”251

 

In addition, Cabrera argues that Cabrera Trial Counsel improperly excluded 

Cabrera from the office conference discussing the jury deadlock and requesting the 

Allen charge in violation of his Superior Court Criminal Rule 43 right to be 

present. This claim does not satisfy Strickland. Pursuant to Rule 43(b)(3), the 

presence of a criminal defendant is not required during “a conference or argument 

upon a question of law.” The wording of an Allen charge is indeed a question of 

law.252 Cabrera Trial Counsel consulted Cabrera with respect to all significant trial 

decisions, including this decision. Cabrera Trial Counsel stated that it “never made 

any significant decision, tactical or otherwise, without consulting with Mr. 

Cabrera.”253 In addition to consultation with counsel, Cabrera was present when 

the Trial Court read the Allen charge to the jury. 

Accordingly, Cabrera’s postconviction claim that the Allen charge was 

unduly coercive and accompanying claims of ineffective assistance of counsel 

must be dismissed on procedural grounds. This Court is satisfied that Cabrera 

 

250 Cabrera Trial Counsel Aff. ¶ 13. 

251 Id.

252 See Bradshaw v. State, 806 A.2d 131, 139 (Del. 2002). Indeed, the Bradshaw Court stated, 

“It is hard to believe that [the defendant’s] presence, as distinct from that of his counsel, would 

have influenced the wording of the Allen charges.” Id. 

253 Cabrera Trial Counsel Aff. ¶ 13. 
92

Trial Counsel acted in accordance with the prevailing decisional law, made tactical 

decisions, and properly included and consulted Cabrera during the process. 

Finally, the interest of justice exception does not apply. 

XI. CABRERA IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF IN CONNECTION

WITH THE STATE’S COMMENTS ON CABRERA’S ALLOCUTION

Cabrera argues that the Trial Court violated his constitutional rights by 

failing to grant a mistrial when the State commented to the jury on Cabrera’s 

failure to express remorse during his allocution.254 Cabrera unsuccessfully 

presented this argument on direct appeal and, therefore, the argument is 

procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(4). On direct appeal, the Supreme Court 

applied the test articulated in Lesko v. Lehman,

255 to determine whether the State 

had improperly commented on a defendant’s right to remain silent and concluded 

that the State had not improperly commented on Cabrera’s allocution.256 Indeed, 

the Supreme Court found that the State “essentially repeated verbatim what 

Cabrera had said during allocution.”257

 

 

254 Allocution is the formal court inquiry of defendant to ask whether he has any legal cause to 

show why judgment should not be pronounced against him; or, whether he would like to make a 

statement on his behalf and present any information in mitigation of sentence. Black’s Law 

Dictionary 76 (6th ed. 1990). 

255 925 F.2d 1527 (3d Cir. 1991). 

256 Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1271–72. 

257 Id. at 1271. 
93

 Cabrera now argues that the Supreme Court improperly relied on the Court’s 

own decision in Shelton v. State,

258 to find that the State’s comments did not 

violate Cabrera’s rights. However, while the Supreme Court did discuss the 

Shelton case, the Court also specifically contrasted the circumstances in Shelton to 

the circumstances of Cabrera’s allocution.259 The Supreme Court stated that, “[i]n 

Shelton, by contrast, the [State] specifically stated that the defendant had failed to 

show any remorse.”260 The Supreme Court noted a similarity between the cases, 

concluding, “[A]s in Shelton, the [State]’s comments, to the extent they touched on 

Cabrera’s lack of remorse at all, did so very briefly.”261 

 Accordingly, Cabrera’s claim is procedurally barred from consideration on 

the merits under Rule 61(i)(4). Cabrera’s Rule 61 motion lacks any new 

information that warrants reconsideration on the merits in the interest of justice. 

XII. JUSTICE WAS SERVED IN THE GUILT PHASE 

OF CABRERA’S ROCKFORD PARK TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 61(i)(5), procedural bars to postconviction claims are not 

applicable to a “colorable claim that there was a miscarriage of justice because of a 

constitutional violation that undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, 

integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.” 

 

258 744 A.2d 465 (Del. 1999). 

259 Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1271–72. 

260 Id. at 1271. 

261 Id. at 1272. 
94

Moreover, pursuant to Rule 61(i)(4), the Court must address any postconviction 

claim that has been formerly adjudicated if “reconsideration is warranted in the 

interest of justice.” 

Not every constitutional violation merits relief under the “miscarriage of 

justice” exception.262 A criminal defendant must present a colorable claim of a 

constitutional violation that “undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, 

integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.”263 

A colorable claim requires the showing of “sufficient facts . . . to take the 

question past the frivolous state.”264 If Cabrera fails to assert a colorable claim, 

then this Court will deny the claims on procedural grounds. Moreover, a criminal 

defendant may trigger the interest of justice exception by presenting legal or 

factual developments that have emerged subsequent to the conviction.265 The 

interest of justice exception is narrow in scope, however, to preserve the purpose of 

Rule 61(i) procedural bars: achieving finality of judgments.266 

According to evidence presented during the Rockford Park Trial, Saunders 

and Rowe were found dead in a wooded area in Rockford Park. The bodies were 

discovered next to one another, face up, and covered by a burgundy-colored bed 

 

262 Webster v. State, 604 A.2d 1364, 1366 (Del. 1992). 

263 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5); Webster, 604 A.2d at 1366. 

264 State v. Wharton, 1991 WL 138417, at *7 (Del. Super. June 3, 1991).

265 Flamer, 585 A.2d at 745–46; Weedon, 750 A.2d at 527–29 (discussing witness recantation as 

a factual development for purposes of the interest of justice exception). 

266 State v. Rosa, 1992 WL 302295, at *7 n. 10 (Del. Super. July 10, 1992). 
95

sheet. The evidence presented against Cabrera in the Rockford Park Trial 

supported the jury’s unanimous verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In 

addition to the evidence addressed in connection with the discussion of Cabrera’s 

Rule 61 claims, there was additional evidence for the jury to consider. 

A. Autopsy Reports 

The autopsies revealed gunshot wounds to the backs of Saunders and 

Rowe’s heads. The autopsy suggested that the men had been beaten, shot, and 

dragged into the wooded area of the park where the bodies were eventually 

discovered. 

Rowe’s cause of death was determined to be a gunshot wound to the back of 

the head. Rowe’s autopsy showed lacerations to the right eye and lower lip, and 

revealed bruises to the abdomen and rib cage, which were determined to have 

caused non-life threatening internal bleeding. The autopsy revealed what appeared 

to be drag marks on Rowe’s lower-body. The drag marks were consistent with the 

theory that the men had been dragged into the wooded-area of Rockford Park. The 

Medical Examiner opined that Rowe suffered all non-gunshot injuries prior to the 

fatal gunshot. 

Saunders’ cause of death was determined to be a gunshot wound to the back 

of the head. Unlike Rowe, Saunders did not suffer any face, torso, or internal 

injuries. The Medical Examiner recovered a bullet from inside Saunders’ brain. 
96

B. Ballistics Test 

A ballistics test of the 38 Special Gun resulted in evidence that the bullets 

fired from the 38 Special Gun matched the weapon that fired the bullet recovered 

from Rowe’s body during the autopsy. 

C. Cabrera’s Number in Memory Bank on Rowe’s Wristwatch 

The police recovered an electronic wristwatch from Rowe’s body, with a 

memory bank of phone numbers. A search of the memory bank recovered a phone 

number listed for the residence of Cabrera Sr. 

D. Rowe at Apartment Building Previously 

Clavel Clamamont lived on the third floor of the Apartment Building. 

During the Rockford Park Trial, Clamamont testified to knowing Cabrera as “Big 

Louie.” Clamamont testified to knowing that Cabrera lived with Reyes, who was 

known as “Little Louie.”267 Clamamont testified that Cabrera and Reyes seemed

very close to each other. Clamamont testified that he recognized Rowe from the 

autopsy photograph as someone she had previously seen outside of the Apartment 

Building.268

E. Saunders had Business Card with Cabrera’s Name and Number 

During a search of Saunders’ home, police discovered a business card with 

“434-6154 Big Lou” handwritten on its back. 

 

267 Cabrera Sentencing, 2002 WL 484641, at *6. 

268 Id. at *6. 
97

F. Metal Shovel Belonged to Cabrera’s Neighbor 

The police recovered a metal shovel at Rockford Park, near the bodies of 

Saunders and Rowe. Donna Ashwell, Cabrera’s neighbor in the Apartment 

Building, testified that she owned the shovel, which she kept outside in a common 

area but that the shovel went missing around the time of the Rockford Park 

Murders.269 In its closing arguments, the State told the jury: 

We know that someone tried to dig a grave. There is no contradiction 

about this testimony. Similarly, you should not allow your common 

sense to be contradicted on the point you can’t dig a grave without a 

shovel. Donna Ashwell told us her shovel was missing. We don’t 

know who tried to dig the grave, whether it was [Cabrera] or . . . 

[Reyes] or both of them at separate times. But we know that someone 

tried.270

G. Saunders’ Pager Sold by Cabrera 

Saunders owned a pager protected with a blue pager case. During an 

investigation on February 3, 1996, police found Saunders’ pager for re-sale at a 

store in Wilmington, Delaware.271 The store turned over a receipt of the pagerreturn transaction which bore Cabrera’s signature. As a result, police turned its 

investigative focus to Cabrera. 

 

269 Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1261. 

270 Closing Arg. Tr. 2/8/2001 at 53:23–54:1–9. 

271 Police referenced a code on the inside of the pager and identified the pager as belonging to 

Saunders. 
98

H. Burgundy Bed Sheets Match 

In April 1997, during the search of Cabrera Sr.’s house, the police seized a 

burgundy-colored, fitted bed sheet in the basement, where Cabrera resided from 

time to time. The FBI compared the fitted bed sheet with the bed sheet found 

covering the bodies of Saunders and Rowe at Rockford Park. The comparison 

revealed that the sheets were the same color, made by the same manufacturer, and 

both had been sold at J.C. Penney. Stephanie Cabrera testified that she and 

Cabrera owned a similar set of burgundy-colored sheets and that, when she moved 

out of the Cabrera Marital Apartment, she left the sheets with Cabrera. 

I. Loud Voices on the Night of the Rockford Park Murders 

Donna Ashwell lived on the first floor of the Apartment Building. During 

the Rockford Park Trial, Ashwell testified that one Saturday evening in January 

1996, she heard an argument in the shared basement of the Apartment Building 

sometime before 9:30 or 10:00 o’clock at night. Ashwell testified that she moved 

to the basement door to investigate after recognizing Cabrera’s voice. Ashwell 

testified that she eventually overheard a loud crash. Ashwell saw Reyes and 

inquired about the noise coming from the basement. Reyes reportedly informed 

Ashwell “they would leave.” Later that evening, Cabrera apologized to Ashwell 

for the noise. 
99

Upon consideration of the entire record, this Court finds there was no 

miscarriage of justice pursuant to Rule 61(i)(5) and that reconsideration of 

otherwise procedurally barred claims is not warranted in the interest of justice 

pursuant to Rule 61(i)(4). The fundamental legality, reliability, integrity and 

fairness of the proceedings leading to Cabrera's conviction and sentencing are 

sound. 

XIII. CABRERA IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF 

FOR BRADY VIOLATION(S)

Cabrera’s Rule 61 motion argues that the State violated his constitutional 

rights by failing to disclose certain exculpatory evidence, including impeachment 

evidence concerning Keith Powell; exculpatory statements made by Sparkle 

Harrigan; and exculpatory information provided by Carlos Rodriguez concerning 

Omar Colon’s alleged involvement in the Rockford Park Murders. Cabrera 

contends that the cumulative effect of these Brady violations undermine 

confidence in the outcome of the Rockford Park Trial. Cabrera is not entitled to a 

new trial on the grounds of cumulative Brady violations because, for the reasons 

that follow, Cabrera has not demonstrated the existence of even a single Brady

violation. 

A. Keith Powell 

 During the Rockford Park Trial, Cabrera Trial Counsel presented Powell as 

a witness to contradict the State’s timeline for the Rockford Park Murders of 
100

Saunders and Rowe. On cross-examination, the State used Powell’s prior 

inconsistent statements to the police to undermine his credibility as a witness. 

However, the State had not disclosed Powell’s prior statements to Cabrera Trial 

Counsel. 

On direct appeal, Cabrera argued, “the State’s disclosure of Powell’s 

exculpatory statements coupled with its withholding of information of Powell’s 

inconsistent statements and other impeaching evidence, constituted a Brady

violation that violated Cabrera’s due process rights.”272 The Delaware Supreme 

Court determined that Powell’s direct testimony tended to show that Cabrera was 

with Saunders and Rowe late in the evening on the night of their deaths, 

contradicting the State’s theory that the Rockford Park Murders happened early in 

the evening.273 However, the Supreme Court concluded the State’s undisclosed 

evidence undermined Powell’s credibility “by demonstrating that [Powell] was 

frequently under the influence of drugs” and that Powell “could not remember 

whether he had been with the victims on the evening of their deaths or on an earlier 

evening.”274 Therefore, because “[e]vidence tending to undermine the credibility 

of a witness who testified in favor of the defense is not favorable to the defense[,]” 

the Supreme Court ruled that the undisclosed Powell information did not qualify as 

 

272 Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1268. 

273 Id. at 1270. 

274 Id.
101

Brady material.275 Because the State was not required to disclose the information, 

no Brady violation had occurred.276 In addition, the Supreme Court rejected 

Cabrera Trial Counsel’s claim that “the State lured [Cabrera Trial Counsel] into a 

trap by providing partial disclosure of what [the State] knew about Powell[,]”277

and that they were misled or unfairly surprised by the State’s evidence impeaching 

Powell is without merit.278

Cabrera’s pending postconviction claim alleging a Brady violation with 

respect to Powell is merely a renewal of a formerly adjudicated claim and is 

therefore subject to procedural bar under Rule 61(i)(4). Cabrera’s Rule 61 motion 

lacks any new legal or factual information to warrant reconsideration of this issue 

in the interest of justice. Therefore, Cabrera’s claim is procedurally barred as 

formerly adjudicated under Rule 61(i)(4) without exception. 

 Cabrera asserts an accompanying claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 

on the grounds that Cabrera Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately 

investigate Powell and in failing to use an investigator to interview him. Cabrera’s 

claim is inconsistent with the record. According to Cabrera Trial Counsel’s 

affidavit responding to Cabrera’s claims of ineffective counsel: 

 

275 Id. (emphasis added). “[T]he State must disclose impeachment material only if it impeaches 

evidence that is favorable to the State.” Id. at 1269. 

276 Id. at 1269. 

277 Id. at 1268. 

278 Id. at 1270 (adding that “[t]he State had disclosed the exculpatory information about Powell 

and his statements to police.”). 
102

Mr. Powell was a difficult person to track down. We had an address 

of 1014 W. 7th Street, but we were also given other addresses by 

neighbors. We reviewed all available Superior Court and Court of 

Common Pleas documents pertaining to Mr. Powell prior to 

interviewing him. (None of these documents led us to believe that 

Mr. Powell was an out-of-control drug addict at the time of his police 

interview.) We made repeated efforts to contact Mr. Powell prior to 

and during the [Rockford Park T]rial. A number of proposed 

meetings were either missed or cancelled by Mr. Powell. While our 

[Defense Investigator] was available to assist us throughout the 

[Rockford Park T]rial, we discovered a brief window of opportunity 

to track down and meet with Mr. Powell . . . . We took advantage of 

that immediate opportunity, and met with him ourselves. On January 

22, 2001, Mr. Deckers again spoke with Mr. Powell (beginning at 

approximately 6:00 p.m.). Mr. Deckers reviewed with Powell the 

statement that had been provided to us by the State. [Cabrera Trial] 

Counsel recollect that, on direct examination, Mr. Powell testified 

fairly consistent with what he had previously told us . . . . Mr. Powell 

was an unresurrectable phoenix not because we didn’t have [Defense 

I]nvestigator with us when we spoke to him; rather, we had no way to 

anticipate the State’s tactics and, specifically, the withheld 

information.

279

 

Cabrera Trial Counsel met reasonable performance standards in connection with 

their efforts to locate Powell and present his testimony as part of the defense case. 

Second, the fact that Cabrera Trial Counsel interviewed Powell without an 

investigator present is not ineffective assistance of counsel per se.

280 Cabrera Trial 

Counsel’s affidavit explains the “immediate” circumstances during which Cabrera 

Trial Counsel could meet with and interview Powell. Cabrera fails to offer any 

reason for this Court to conclude that if Defense Investigator had also been 

 

279 Cabrera Trial Counsel Aff. ¶ 9 (emphasis added). 

280 See ABA Guidelines, supra note 34, § 11.4.1 (providing that defense counsel should conduct 

witness interviews in the presence of a third person). 
103

available under the “immediate” circumstances, then Powell would have offered 

Cabrera Trial Counsel different information or that it would have changed the 

outcome. 

Third and finally, Cabrera Trial Counsel met with Powell twice and 

determined that Powell provided “fairly consistent” information. Cabrera Trial 

Counsel testified at the postconviction evidentiary hearing that, upon interviewing 

Powell, they believed “Powell would be a good witness. He was working. He had 

indicated, I believe, that he had had a drug problem, but he was not on drugs. He 

was holding a full-time job, and he appeared to be clean cut[.]”281

The Court notes that, upon consideration of Cabrera’s claim on direct 

appeal, the Supreme Court declined to conclude that the State’s impeachment 

evidence regarding Powell surprised Cabrera Trial Counsel.282 This Court finds 

that, while Powell was difficult track down, he presented consistent and helpful 

information. Cabrera cannot satisfy Strickland. 

B. Sparkle Harrigan 

Harrigan was the girlfriend of Saunders at the time of the Rockford Park 

Murders. Harrigan provided two statements to the police regarding a timeline of 

her interactions with Saunders on the night he was killed. According to Cabrera, 

Harrigan’s timeline of the events on the night of the Rockford Park Murders was 

 

281 Ev. Hr’g Tr. 10/23/2012 at 11:16–20 (emphasis added). 

282 See Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1269–70. 
104

different from the State’s timeline at Cabrera’s Rockford Park Trial. Cabrera 

argues that Harrigan’s statements were therefore exculpatory and that the State 

committed a Brady violation because it did not disclose the statements to Cabrera 

Trial Counsel. 

Cabrera did not assert this argument on direct appeal and, therefore, the 

claim is subject to procedural bar under Rule 61(i)(3). Cabrera has not asserted 

any external impediment that prevented Cabrera Trial Counsel from raising this 

argument on direct appeal. In addition, the Court notes that Cabrera did not assert 

an accompanying claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for Cabrera Trial 

Counsel’s failure to assert this claim on direct appeal. Nonetheless, Cabrera’s 

claim fails on the merits because the Harrigan’s statements were not exculpatory 

and, therefore, no Brady violation occurred. 

Harrigan testified at Reyes’ trial regarding the Rockford Park Murders but 

not at Cabrera’s Rockford Park Trial. Harrigan testified consistently with her 

earlier statements to the police. On direct examination, Harrigan stated that she 

was with Saunders at his home on the evening of Saturday, January 20, 1996. 

Harrigan testified that she arrived at Saunders’ house around 9:00 p.m. and stayed 

for about two hours.283 At some point during her visit, Harrigan testified that 

Saunders stepped out of the bedroom to talk to [Rowe], who had just allegedly 

 

283 Reyes’ Trial Tr. 10/11/2001 at 66:4, 67:3–8, State’s App. at B-115–120. 
105

arrived at Saunders’ house. Harrigan did not see [Rowe] but recalled that she 

“could hear voices, but . . . wasn’t paying attention to what they were saying.”284

 On cross-examination, Harrigan admitted that she didn’t know the exact 

time she arrived or left Saunders’ house. Harrigan admitted that she could have 

arrived anytime between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m.285 Harrigan testified that she left 

Saunders’ house because her grandmother paged her to come home and that she 

received the page sometime after 9:30 but before 10:00 p.m.286 Harrigan left 

Saunders’ house five to ten minutes after receiving the page.287

 Cabrera argues that Harrigan stated that she was at Saunders’ house from 

9:00–11:00 p.m. and that Rowe stopped by at some point during that time and, 

therefore, her statements discredit the State’s timeline of events. This Court does 

not agree that Harrigan’s statements to police, or testimony at Reyes’ trial 

regarding the Rockford Park Murders, discredit the State’s timeline of events or 

qualify as Brady material. 

According to the record, the State’s timeline of events was based on 

estimates and generalities. For instance, in its closing arguments that State offered 

vague references to the timeline, such as: “What Donna Ashwell told you is that 

she is absolutely certain that on Saturday night, before the Sunday morning on 

 

284 Id. at 69:9–10. 

285 Id. at 81:2–84:1–19. 

286 Id. at 86:5–87:1–21. 

287 Id. at 89. 
106

which [Saunders] and [Rowe’s] bodies were found [Ashwell] overheard coming 

from the basement the sounds of a terrible beating.”

288 In fact, earlier during the 

Rockford Park Trial, State Lead Investigating Officer testified that Ashwell made a 

statement to police that she had heard sounds from the Apartment Building 

basement at 8:00, 9:00, or even later than that.289 The State continued its closing 

argument, “What do we know about what happened on the night of January 20, 

early morning hours of January 21.”290 The State’s timeline was more general 

than exacting. Harrigan’s estimated timeline of events did not directly conflict 

with Ashwell’s estimated timeline, nor did Harrigain’s statements qualify as 

exculpatory. 

Exculpatory evidence is such that “tends to justify, excuse of clear the 

defendant from alleged fault or guilty.”291 Here, Harrigan made statements 

concerning her estimate of the timing of events on the night of the Rockford Park 

Murders. The fact the Harrigan recalled a timeline that overlapped portions of 

Ashwell’s timeline does not go to Cabrera’s guilt or innocence. In addition, 

Harrigan’s statements are not favorable to the defense because the State did not 

offer a specific time that the Rockford Park Murders occurred. Accordingly, 

 

288 Closing Arg. Tr. 2/8/2001 at 44:16–20 (emphasis added). 

289 Trial Tr. 2/2/2001 at 5:10–15, 6:9–12. 

290 Closing Arg. Tr. 2/8/2001 at 48:7–8 (emphasis added). 

291 Black’s Law Dictionary 566 (6th ed. 1990). See Wright v. State, 91 A.3d 972, 977 (Del. 

2014) (“A Brady violation occurs where the State fails to disclose material evidence that is 

favorable to the accused, because it is either exculpatory or impeaching, causing prejudice to the 

defendant.”). 
107

Cabrera’s claim of a Brady violation with respect to the statements of Harrigan has 

no merit. 

C. Carlos Rodriguez and Omar Colon 

Carlos Rodriguez and Omar Colon were arrested in April 2001 for drug 

charges unrelated to the Rockford Park Murders (“2001 Unrelated Drug Charges”). 

After his arrest, Rodriguez served as a police informant. Cabrera contends that 

while the 2001 Unrelated Drug Charges were pending, Rodriguez told the Deputy 

Attorney General exculpatory Brady information about the Rockford Park Murders 

that the State failed to disclose. Specifically, Cabrera contends that Rodriguez told 

the Deputy Attorney General that Rodriguez’s cousin Colon was responsible for 

the Rockford Park Murders. 

Cabrera did not present this claim on direct appeal but this claim is not 

subject to a procedural bar under Rule 61(i)(3) because Cabrera Trial Counsel was 

unaware of the alleged existence of this information until 2012. Accordingly, 

Cabrera has demonstrated an external impediment that prevented Cabrera Trial 

Counsel from raising this argument in an earlier proceeding. In addition, this 

information may qualify as Brady material and Cabrera may be able to 

demonstrate that he was prejudiced without it. 

However, upon consideration of the record, this Court cannot conclude that 

the State ever possessed Brady information as alleged by Cabrera. There is no 
108

evidence to corroborate the recollection of the Deputy Attorney General who 

interviewed Rodriguez in 2001 and the record reflects that the Deputy Attorney 

General is not even sure if her memory was accurate about the 2001 comment.292

 

Moreover, investigating officers were present for the interview and they testified 

that they did not recall Rodriguez making the comment. Also, Cabrera Rule 61 

Counsel deposed Rodriquez in November 2014 and he himself does not remember 

making such a proffer against Colon.293 Rodriguez stated that even if he had made 

a statement regarding Colon’s involvement in the Rockford Park murders it was 

nothing more than a rumor or personal opinion.294

Accordingly, this Court finds that the suggested proffer by Colon is illusory, 

not supported by the record, and therefore not exculpatory. 

Cabrera’s claims of Brady violations concerning Powell, Harrigan, and 

Rodriguez do not have merit. Cabrera has not demonstrated the existence of a 

single Brady violation. Therefore, Cabrera is not entitled to a new trial on the 

grounds of the cumulative effect of multiple Brady violations. 

XIV. JOINT SENTENCING BY THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT VIOLATE 

CABRERA’S RIGHT TO INDIVIDUALIZED SENTENCING

A criminal defendant’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment 

includes the right to an individualized determination that the defendant should 

 

292 Ev. Hr’g Tr. 4/1/2013 at 77:3–5. 

293 Rodriguez Dep. Tr. 11/14/2012 at 50:20–25, State’s App. at B-183–206. 

294 See id. at 17–19, 36, 41, 49, 51, 60–61. 
109

receive the death penalty.295 Cabrera argues that he did not have the benefit of 

individualized sentencing because the Trial Court issued a joint sentencing 

decision addressing Cabrera and Reyes. More importantly, Cabrera objects to 

consideration by the Trial Court of information presented at Reyes’ trial regarding 

the Rockford Park Murders but not presented at Cabrera’s Rockford Park Trial. 296 

Cabrera contends that he was prejudiced because he was depicted at Reyes’ trial as 

the more culpable conspirator. 297 According to Cabrera, he was denied due 

process because he “had no opportunity to deny or explain” the presentation made 

at Reyes’ trial.298

 Cabrera did not challenge the Trial Court’s joint sentencing decision on 

direct appeal and, therefore, the claim is subject to procedural considerations under 

Rule 61(i)(3) which bars relief if the motion includes claims not asserted in prior 

proceedings leading to the final judgment. The procedural bars to postconviction 

 

295 U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Del. Const. art. I, § 2; Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 879 (1983). 

296 See e.g., Cabrera Sentencing, 2002 WL 484641, at *8 (“In Reyes’ trial, however, there was 

some additional evidence. Most notable were statements which Reyes made.”); id. at *10 

(“[T]here are some significant additional details introduced into evidence in the Reyes trial.”); id.

at *20 (“The motive in Cabrera’s trial and hearing was not as fully developed as in Reyes’ trial 

and hearing.”). 

297 See id. at at *3 (“The malignant influence of [Cabrera] on the life and actions of [Reyes]. 

During [Reyes] teenage years, [Cabrera] served as a father figure for [Reyes]. [Reyes] felt 

compelled to participate in criminal acts with [Cabrera] in order to gain his love and respect.”). 

298 See Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 362 (1977) (finding that the defendant “was denied 

due process of law when the death sentence was imposed, at least in part, on the basis of 

information which he had no opportunity to deny or explain.”). 
110

relief under Rule 61(i)(3)299 can be overcome if the motion asserts a colorable 

claim that there has been a “miscarriage of justice” as the result of a constitutional 

violation that undermined the fundamental fairness of the proceedings.300

 

There was no miscarriage of justice with respect to issuance of a joint 

sentencing decision. The Trial Court properly addressed the statutory and nonstatutory aggravating factors as to each defendant301 before discussing the nonstatutory aggravating factors as well as the mitigating factors as to Cabrera and 

Reyes, separately.302 Also, the Trial Court properly weighed the aggravating and 

mitigating circumstances as to each defendant individually.303 This Court is 

satisfied that the Trial Court’s joint sentencing decision did not violate Cabrera’s 

constitutional right to individualized sentencing and there was no miscarriage of 

justice. 

Cabrera also asserts a related claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 

against Cabrera Trial Counsel for the failure to object to the same judge presiding 

over both Cabrera’s and Reyes’ trials regarding the Rockford Park Murders. 

According to Cabrera, had Cabrera Trial Counsel objected, then at least “the 

evidence from Mr. Reyes’[] trial would not have been considered in sentencing 

 

299 This exception is also applicable to procedural bars to postconviction relief under Rule 61 

(i)(1) and (2), but those bars are not relevant here. 

300 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5); Younger, 580 A.2d at 555.

301 Cabrera Sentencing, 2002 WL 484641, at *9–13. 

302 Id. at *13–19. 

303 Id. at *20–22. 
111

Mr. Cabrera, and there is a reasonable probability that Mr. Cabrera would have 

received a different sentence.”304

 

Cabrera cannot demonstrate that representation by Cabrera Trial Counsel fell 

below an objective standard of reasonableness and, therefore, cannot satisfy the 

Strickland requirements for relief. As the Delaware Supreme Court explained in 

Jackson v. State,

305 “[a]s a necessary consequence of their evidentiary gatekeeping 

function, trial judges hear, see, and make judgments about inadmissible evidence 

regularly.”306 The Jackson Court explained that “review mechanisms exist to 

protect defendants in cases where the fact finder hearing of inadmissible evidence 

is so prejudicial as to create an unacceptable ‘appearance of impropriety’ that 

could test reasonable lay persons’ trust in the judicial system.”307 A single judge 

presiding at separate trials of co-defendants, even after those trials are severed, 

does not violate the rights of either defendant. A challenge of the assignment to 

one judge would not have been consistent with prevailing professional norms.308

Accordingly, Cabrera is not entitled to postconviction relief because he had 

the benefit of individualized sentencing; there was no miscarriage of justice; and 

 

304 Cabrera’s Opening Br. 179 (Apr. 14, 2014). 

305 Jackson v. State (Jackson 2011), 21 A.3d 27 (Del. 2011). 

306 Id. at 37–38. 

307 Id. at 38. 

308 In fact, in the interest of fairness, it is appropriate for a judge to consider the relative 

sentences of co-defendants while sentencing. Thus, here the judge should have considered 

Reyes’ sentence during the sentencing of Cabrera even if there were separate penalty hearings. 

See State v. Zebroski, 1997 WL 528287, at *16 (Del. Super. Aug. 1, 1997) aff’d and remanded, 

715 A.2d 75 (Del. 1998). 
112

Cabrera Trial Counsel’s representation did not fall below an objective standard of 

reasonableness. 

XV. CABRERA IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF ON BASIS OF 

HIS GENERAL CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS 

TO DELAWARE’S DEATH PENALTY STATUTE

 Cabrera’s Rule 61 motion argues that this Court must vacate his death 

sentence because the Delaware’s 1991 death penalty statute is unconstitutional. In 

his direct appeal, Cabrera presented these same constitutional objections, and the 

Delaware Supreme Court rejected these claims. The Delaware Supreme Court, 

upon Cabrera’s direct appeal from his jury conviction following the Rockford Park 

Trial, specifically addressed Cabrera’s claims regarding the constitutionality of 

Delaware’s death penalty. The Supreme Court found no reversible error and no 

basis to vacate Cabrera’s death sentence. The Court specifically rejected Cabrera’s 

argument that Delaware’s death penalty statute improperly gave the Trial Court the 

sole power to sentence Cabrera to death. In addition, the Supreme Court 

concluded that the Trial Court properly charged the jury during the penalty phase 

of the Rockford Park Trial.309

 

309 Cabrera Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1272–74. The Trial Court told the jury that: 

[W]hile the [Trial] Court has the ultimate responsibility for imposing sentence on 

the defendant, your role as jurors in the sentencing procedure is, nevertheless, 

both vital and important. You will provide the [Trial] Court, as the conscience of 

the community, with an advisory opinion on what the jury believes the evidence 

has shown with regard to the appropriate penalty in this case. Although the [Trial] 

Court is not bound by your recommendation, your recommended answers to the 
113

Rule 61(i)(4) bars relief if the motion includes grounds for relief formerly 

adjudicated in any proceeding leading to the judgment of conviction, in an appeal, 

or in a postconviction proceeding. The procedural bar under Rule 61(i)(4)310

 can 

be overcome if consideration of the claim on its merits is warranted in the “interest 

of justice.” 

The Delaware Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of 

the Delaware Death Statute, including in Cabrera’s own case.

311 Under the 

Delaware capital punishment scheme, the trial judge of the Superior Court bears 

the ultimate responsibility for imposition of the death sentence.312 The jury acts in 

an advisory capacity as the conscience of the community in determining whether 

 

questions provided will be given great weight by the [Trial] Court in its final 

determination of the appropriate sentence. 

Id. at 1274. 

310 This exception is also applicable to procedural bars to postconviction relief under Rule 61 

(i)(2), but that bar is not relevant here. 

311 See e.g., Swan v. State, 820 A.2d 342 (Del. 2003) (holding that a jury’s conviction of a 

defendant unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime that itself established a 

statutory aggravating circumstance satisfied the constitutional requirements set forth in Ring v. 

Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), by providing a determination of the actor that rendered the 

defendant “death eligible”); Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 314 (Del. 2003) (upholding the 2002 

version of 11 Del. C. § 4209, noting that “[t]he 2002 Statute transformed the jury’s role . . . from 

one that was advisory under the 1991 version . . . into one that is now determinative as to the 

existence of any statutory aggravating circumstances.”); Ortiz v. State, 869 A.2d 285, 305 (Del. 

2005) (stating that the Delaware Supreme Court “adhere[s] to [its] holding in Brice that 

Delaware's hybrid form of sentencing, allowing the jury to find the defendant death eligible and 

then allowing a judge to impose the death penalty once the defendant is found to be death 

eligible, is not contrary to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution[.]”); Cabrera 

Direct Appeal, 840 A.2d at 1272–74. 

312 11 Del. C. § 4209(d); Brice, 815 A.2d at 320 (explaining that final sentencing decision rests 

with the sentencing judge under the 1991 and 2002 version of 11 Del. C. § 4209). 
114

the death penalty is the appropriate punishment and through its recommendation, 

plays an integral role in the sentencing result.313

 

 These claims are barred pursuant to Rule 61(i)(4) and reconsideration is not 

warranted in the interest of justice. Cabrera has not presented new legal or factual 

development to warrant this Court’s reconsideration on the merits.314 To the extent 

Cabrera alleges the ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise any specific 

issue related to the Delaware Death Statute, Cabrera’s claim does not satisfy 

Strickland. Cabrera has not demonstrated that Cabrera Trial Counsel’s 

representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness because Cabrera 

Trial Counsel acted reasonably and in accordance with Delaware law. 

XVI. CONCLUSION

Cabrera was entitled to have the extensive mitigating evidence presented to a 

jury for its consideration in reaching a sentencing recommendation.315 The Court 

finds that Cabrera Trial Counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel with 

respect to the mitigation investigation, the lack of preparation for the penalty 

phase, and the inaccurate presentation of Cabrera’s childhood and upbringing. 

Under Strickland, the appropriate remedy is for the Court to vacate Cabrera’s death 

 

313 Jackson v. State, 684 A.2d 745, 749 (Del. 1996). See also Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 519–20. 

314 After briefing was completed, Cabrera Rule 61 Counsel moved to stay the postconviction 

proceedings on the grounds that the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Florida v. 

Hurst, 135 S. Ct. 1531 (Mar. 9, 2015). This Court denied the motion to stay after oral argument. 

315 See 11 Del. C. § 4209. 
115

sentence. The fundamental legality, reliability, integrity and fairness of the 

proceedings leading to Cabrera's convictions and sentencing are otherwise sound. 

 NOW, THEREFORE, this 17th day of JUNE, 2015, the Postconviction 

Motion of Luis G. Cabrera, Jr. is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

The death sentence imposed by Order dated March 14, 2002 is hereby 

VACATED. This Court finds that the fundamental legality, reliability, 

integrity and fairness of the proceedings leading to Cabrera’s convictions and 

sentencing are otherwise sound and do not merit relief. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Andrea L. Rocanelli 

____________________________________ 

The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli