UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHESTER WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

Case Number 09-12667

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

RAYMOND BOOKER,

Respondent.

________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS

FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND DISCOVERY

Petitioner Chester Williams has filed a pro se petition for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition challenges Petitioner’s Wayne County convictions for

second-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of, or attempt to commit,

a felony. Petitioner was sentenced to two years in prison for the felony firearm conviction, and a

consecutive term of twenty-five to forty years for the murder conviction. He alleges in his habeas

petition that: (1) he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the

lesser-included offense of manslaughter; (2) the trial court improperly suppressed evidence of the

victim’s prior acts of violence; (3) trial and appellate counsel were ineffective; (4) the trial court

improperly submitted the charge of first-degree murder to the jury, and the evidence was insufficient

to sustain his conviction for second-degree murder; and (5) the police failed to preserve critical

impeachment evidence. Currently pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motions for an

evidentiary hearing and for limited discovery. 

1:09-cv-12667-TLL-RSW Doc # 24 Filed 10/10/12 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 1569
I

The third habeas claim alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when

the trial court re-instructed the jury in Petitioner’s and his attorney’s absence. Petitioner further

alleges that his appellate attorney was ineffective for failing to raise this issue on appeal. He seeks

an evidentiary hearing on the issue of his attorneys’ ineffectiveness. 

The provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)

govern this case, and 

AEDPA restricts the availability of federal evidentiary hearings. See Davis v. Lafler,

658 F.3d 525, 539 (6th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (Martin, J., concurring in part). For a

claim that was adjudicated on the merits in a state court proceeding, sections

2254(d)(1) and (d)(2) of AEDPA apply, and the district court is limited to the record

that was before the state court at the time. See [Cullen v. Pinholster, __ U.S. __, __,

131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011)]; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 

Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 673 F.3d 452, 464 (6th Cir. 2012), petition for cert. filed,

No. 11-10290 (U.S. May 10, 2012). If the state court did not adjudicate Petitioner’s claims on the

merits, the question is whether he failed to develop the factual basis for his claim in state court. See

id. (explaining 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)).1

 

1

 Section 2254(e)(2) reads:

(2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court

proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless

the applicant shows that--

(A) the claim relies on-- 

(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the

Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or 

(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been

previously discovered through the exercise of due

-2-

1:09-cv-12667-TLL-RSW Doc # 24 Filed 10/10/12 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 1570
It appears that no state court adjudicated the merits of Petitioner’s claim about trial and

appellate counsel, and Petitioner claims that he is not at fault for failing to develop the factual basis

for his claim in state court. “In cases where an applicant for federal habeas relief is not barred from

obtaining an evidentiary hearing by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), the decision to grant such a hearing rests

in the discretion of the district court.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 468 (2007). 

In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider

whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition’s factual

allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief . . . .

[I]f the record refutes the applicant’s factual allegations or otherwise precludes

habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.

Id. at 474.

Although no state court adjudicated Petitioner’s ineffectiveness claim on the merits, the trial

court’s successor adjudicated the related allegation that there was an improper ex parte

communication between the trial court and the jury. The successor judge stated in an order denying

Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment that the trial court merely provided the jury with written

copies of jury instructions previously agreed to. When a court merely reiterates instructions

previously given and approved by counsel, a defendant is not deprived of his right to be present or

his right to counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings. Phillips v. Bradshaw, 607 F.3d 199, 224

(6th Cir. 2010); Hudson v. Jones, 351 F.3d 212, 218 (6th Cir. 2003). The Court therefore finds it

unnecessary to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether Petitioner’s attorneys were ineffective for

diligence; and 

(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish

by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error,

no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of

the underlying offense. 

-3-

1:09-cv-12667-TLL-RSW Doc # 24 Filed 10/10/12 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 1571
failing to object at trial or on appeal to the trial court’s re-instruction.

II

The fifth habeas claim alleges that the police failed to preserve critical impeachment

evidence. The evidence in question is the deceased victim’s tee-shirt. In his motion for discovery,

Petitioner seeks the Wayne County Medical Examiner’s photograph of the shirt. He contends that

the it would show that the shooting was close-range and that he acted in self defense. 

 Habeas petitioners are not entitled to discovery as a matter of course. Bracy v. Gramley, 520

U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Although a judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct

discovery, “the scope and extent of such discovery is a matter confided to the discretion of the

District Court.” Id. at 909. It is an abuse of discretion not to permit discovery when specific factual

allegations, if fully developed, would entitle the petitioner to relief. Id. at 908-09. 

Petitioner alleges that the prosecution failed to preserve potentially useful evidence, but to 

prevail on this claim, Petitioner must demonstrate that the police acted in bad faith. Arizona v.

Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988). He “must show: (1) that the government acted in bad faith in

failing to preserve the evidence; (2) that the exculpatory value of the evidence was apparent before

its destruction; and (3) that the nature of the evidence was such that the defendant would be unable

to obtain comparable evidence by other means.” Monzo v. Edwards, 281 F.3d 568, 580 (6th Cir.

2002) (citing Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 57, and United States v. Jobson, 102 F.3d 214, 218 (6th Cir.

1996)).

Petitioner alleges that a photograph of the tee-shirt has exculpatory value and that he has

been unable to obtain the evidence by other means. But a photograph of the missing shirt would not

help Petitioner establish that the police acted in bad faith by destroying the evidence. Therefore,

-4-

1:09-cv-12667-TLL-RSW Doc # 24 Filed 10/10/12 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 1572
Petitioner would not be entitled to habeas relief on the basis of his fifth claim even if he acquired

the photograph and was able to show that the shooting was close range.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, ECF No.

21, is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for limited discovery, ECF No. 20, is

DENIED.

Dated: October 10, 2012 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney of record herein by electronic means and upon

Chester Williams #134688, Ryan Correctional Facility, 17600 Ryan

Road, Detroit, MI 48212 by first class U.S. mail on October 10, 2012.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

-5-

1:09-cv-12667-TLL-RSW Doc # 24 Filed 10/10/12 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 1573