Opinion ID: 199642
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevant Excerpts from the Trial Transcript

Text: 8 As noted above, Kibbe took the stand in his own defense, offering an explanation for his presence at 171 Almira Road, his flight from the police, and his possession of the matches, paper towels, flashlight, and propane tank. On direct examination by his attorney, the following exchanges occurred: 9 Q. And now, why did you run? 10 A. I'm on parole. 11  12 Q. And after [Rooke] brought you back to the car what did you do? 13 A. They questioned me as to what I was doing. I answered them over and over again. . . . 14 Q. All right. When they were questioning you what did you tell them? 2 15 A. I told them what had happened. 16 During cross-examination, the Commonwealth asked Kibbe: 17 Q. You didn't tell the police that you ran because you were on parole, right? 18 A. No, I did not. 19 Q. You never told them why you ran? 20 A. I don't believe I did. 21 Both Kibbe and the Commonwealth commented at trial on Kibbe's forthrightness, or lack thereof, in his conversation with the police on the night of the fire. In his opening statement Kibbe's attorney said: 22 [Kibbe] was stopped a short distance away, spoke to the police. They spoke to him and he explained what he was doing and what the situation was on that evening. 23 In closing, Kibbe's attorney reinforced this point: 24 What about Mr. Kibbe? Mr. Kibbe told the police what he was up to that night. He didn't have to, but he did. He told you on the stand where he went that night. He didn't have to, but he did. 25 To counter, the Commonwealth said during closing argument: 26 And [Kibbe] tells you he runs because he is on parole, but you know he didn't tell the police that, didn't offer that as an explanation for what he was doing. In a case where you're the finders of the facts, you have to decide credibility. You have to decide credibility. You must decide whether you believe what Mark Kibbe said. Whether it had a ring of truth or whether it didn't. If you don't believe what Mark Kibbe said, Mark Kibbe is guilty. 27  28 There's a reasonable inference, the inference of guilt of consciousness, guilt from his flight. The explanation that he offered to you is not worthy of believing. This is a fanciful explanation, not one that comports with your idea of common sense. 29  30 It is not a reasonable story. It is the one arrived at after the facts to mislead you. C. Procedural History 31 After Kibbe's jury trial and conviction, the case proceeded to the Appeals Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In a Memorandum and Order, the court affirmed Kibbe's conviction. Commonwealth v. Kibbe, 646 N.E.2d 1097 38 Mass. App. Ct. 1111, 646 N.E.2d 1097 (1995) (affirming judgment only), No. 93-P-1761 (Mar. 3, 1995) (mem. and order under Rule 1:28). Relying in large part on Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404 (1980), and Commonwealth v. McClary, 604 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992), the court rejected Kibbe's argument that the Commonwealth's cross-examination and closing argument violated the rule established in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 617-19 (1976), prohibiting the use of post-Miranda silence to impeach a defendant. Kibbe, No. 93-P-1761 at 2. 3 The Court ruled that since Kibbe had spoken to police about all matters concerning the charge for which he was arrested, the Commonwealth was permitted to question Kibbe about any omissions in his story. Id. at 3. In support, the court quoted McClary: if a defendant does not elect to remain silent but speaks to the police about matters concerning the crime for which he has been arrested, the prosecutor may ask the defendant about any omission from his post-Miranda statement which is at variance with his trial testimony. 604 N.E.2d at 710. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied Kibbe's request for further review. Commonwealth v. Kibbe, 648 N.E.2d 1286 (Mass. 1995). 32 Kibbe next petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court of Massachusetts, which was granted in a Memorandum and Order on September 26, 2000. Kibbe v. Dubois, 120 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D. Mass. 2000). In analyzing Kibbe's alleged Doyle violation, the district court first found that the claim was subject to the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), petitioner's case having been filed in January of 1997. Kibbe, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 118. As such, Kibbe's writ must be denied unless the state court adjudication resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 33 After reviewing the Supreme Court's most comprehensive interpretation of AEDPA in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), the district court held that the Massachusetts appeals court decision was both contrary to and involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. 4 Kibbe, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 121. The district court held that the state court decision was contrary to clearly established federal law in two ways. First, it ruled that the holding of Doyle that prohibits cross-examination and arguments to the jury regarding a defendant's post-Miranda silence, should have governed Kibbe's claim. Id. at 121-24 (citing Doyle, 426 U.S. at 619,96 S.Ct. 2240). It further held that the appeals court erred in applying Charles because the Commonwealth did not use Kibbe's failure to provide police with a reason for his flight to expose inconsistencies between his trial testimony and his statements after his arrest. According to the district court, The Charles rule . . . is only triggered when the defendant's trial testimony addresses the same subject matter as the defendant's post-arrest statement. Kibbe, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 123. Because Kibbe only discussed his reasons for being in the area of 171 Almira Road and not the reason for his flight from the police, the district court ruled that he had elected to remain partially silent, at least with regard to his flight, and thus, comment by the government constituted error. 34 As a second basis for finding that the state court decision was contrary to clearly established federal law, the district court held that the appeals court misstated the rule of Anderson v. Charles. Id. at 125. The state court relied, in large part, on the McClary case in rejecting Kibbe's appeal. McClary, in turn, focused not on the inconsistency between the defendant's arrest and trial statements, but instead on the fact that the defendant chose to waive his Miranda right to silence and to answer questions posed by the police. 604 N.E.2d at 710. The district court found that this approach impermissibly expanded the bounds for questioning a defendant regarding post-Miranda silence set out in Charles: 35 The breadth of the language in McClary, however, opened the door to questioning and comments by the prosecutor with respect to any subject matter, regardless of actual or potential inconsistency, whenever the defendant makes a post-arrest statement regarding the crime. This is not the rule of Anderson v. Charles. The Charles case only authorizes a prosecutor to ask questions about post-Miranda omissions when those omissions are on the same topic as the trial testimony and arguably contradict it. 36 Kibbe, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 125-26. To the extent that the Kibbe state court decision adopted the reasoning of McClary, it violated clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court in Charles. 37 As an alternative ground for granting habeas relief, the district court held that the state court's adjudication involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Id. at 126. The district court pointedly disagreed with the appeals court conclusion that Kibbe had waived his right to silence in its entirety. 5 Instead, the district court parsed the subject of the arson and Kibbe's potential involvement into two categories: his explanation for being at 171 Almira Road on the evening of November 19, 1991, and his explanation for his flight from the police that night. Id. at 126-27. Because Kibbe did not discuss with police the reason for his flight, the district court found that Kibbe had waived his right to remain silent with respect to some matters, but not with respect to all matters. Id. at 127. 38 Examining appeals court decisions from the First, Second, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits to evaluate the reasonableness of the state court decision, the district court concluded that its own interpretation of the Doyle-Charles framework was correct. Id. at 127-30. While acknowledging that applicable First Circuit precedent includes only one case, Grieco v. Hall, 641 F.2d 1029 (1st Cir. 1981), in which we specifically mentioned, but failed to resolve, the exact issue that was before the Kibbe court, the district court cited Grieco as reject[ing] the loose waiver analysis exemplified by Kibbe, id. at 128. The court stated that, This does not mean that any time a defendant makes any post-arrest statement the door is open to full cross-examination about the defendant's failure to recount the exculpatory trial story earlier. Miranda protections apply equally to refusals to answer specific questions. Id. (quoting Grieco, 641 F.2d at 1034). 39 The district court found more explicit support for its conclusion that the Commonwealth committed a Doyle violation in its cross-examination and closing comments in the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In United States v. Laury, 985 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1993), the Fifth Circuit held that a prosecutor's questions and comments regarding the defendant's failure to come forward with his alibi prior to trial, despite having made exculpatory statements after his arrest, were impermissible comments on the defendant's post-arrest silence. 985 F.2d at 1303-04. Similarly, the Tenth Circuit has addressed circumstances of partial silence, and concluded that a defendant is still entitled to Doyle protection as to silences that are not inconsistent with his trial testimony. United States v. Canterbury, 985 F.2d 483, 486 (10th Cir. 1993). 40 Rounding out its favorable precedent, the district court discussed United States v. Casamento, 887 F.2d 1141, 1179 (2d Cir. 1989), for its holding that the prosecutor erred in cross-examining the defendant about his silence when his pretrial and trial statements were not inconsistent. The district court concluded: These cases demonstrate that the Kibbe decision runs directly contrary to existing federal precedent applying Charles. Thus, I conclude not only that Kibbe has the better of two reasonable legal arguments. Rather, I am firmly convinced that error occurred and that the Kibbe decision is an unreasonable outcome. Kibbe, 120 F. Supp. 2d at 130-31. 41 The district court went on to find that the alleged Doyle errors were not harmless, and granted Kibbe's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 131-33.