Opinion ID: 2974809
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Elicitation of Hearsay Statements

Text: Similarly, counsel’s failure to object to the admission of two hearsay documents from Petitioner’s jail file, the Medical Data form and the letter from Petitioner’s cellmates, does not entitle Petitioner to habeas relief. The district court made no express ruling as to whether counsel’s failure to object to this evidence met the first requirement of the Strickland test, and it is unnecessary for this court to do so in the first instance, since the prejudice requirement is not met. -8- No. 03-6250 James v. United States The Medical Data form recorded a police officer’s belief that Petitioner’s “behavior” at the time of his arrest “suggest[ed] the risk of assault.” Though, as this court ruled on direct appeal, the Medical Data form was inadmissible hearsay, the evidence was essentially cumulative with the testimony of the arresting officer. That officer had already testified that when Petitioner was stopped, “It was kind of a tense moment. I’d already received a [be-on-the-lookout] of an altercation in Johnson City involving a weapon. I stopped a vehicle with the tag number that was given to me, and I felt a threat of a – of a gun.” 7/3/1997 Tr. Excerpt at 8-9. Although the hearsay evidence “was improperly before the jury,” it “was cumulative of other evidence and did not pose a reasonable possibility of prejudice to the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Lartigue, Nos. 93-5356, 93-5359, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 9342, at  (6th Cir. Apr. 26, 1994); see also United States v. Sollars, 979 F.2d 1294, 1298 (8th Cir. 1992). The letter purportedly from Petitioner’s cellmates alleged that he was “using intimidation to take from people.” The letter does not specify what “intimidation” means, and Petitioner’s explanation that his cellmates may have been resentful because he had won several poker games was uncontroverted. 7/3/1997 Tr. Excerpt at 36. Thus, it is not clear that the hearsay statement in the letter was even unflattering to Petitioner. Even assuming that it was, in the context of the officer’s testimony mentioned above and the testimony of Nashville Sound security guards that Petitioner was “cursing us out pretty good,” that Petitioner or his companion stated that “they’d shoot every one of” the security guards, that Petitioner made two passes by the guards in his car, and that he fired a shot as he drove away, any evidence of Petitioner’s disagreements with cellmates was harmless. -9- No. 03-6250 James v. United States Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance fail because he cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland.