Opinion ID: 677091
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Parkus' other claims lack merit

Text: 32
33 Parkus contends that the prosecutor infringed on his fifth amendment right not to testify by stating during closing argument: 34 You can't, and I can't help you crawl inside that man's head and determine what he is thinking. It's not possible. You can only determine what a man is thinking by his actions, or if he tells you. And his actions speak loudly, don't they? 35 Appellant's App. Vol. I, Tab 3, at 311. Parkus' counsel failed to object at the time, and the petitioner now contends the trial court's failure to take sua sponte action after the prosecutor's comment constituted plain error. Parkus argues these remarks are even more direct than those condemned by this court in United States v. Prine, 909 F.2d 1109, 1111 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 954, 111 S.Ct. 2263, 114 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991), where the prosecutor remarked: There's only two people who know what their intent was on that day, and they're sitting in this courtroom. 36 In this case, the prosecutor made an indirect reference to the defendant's decision not to testify. Indirect references to the accused's decision not to testify are impermissible if they either (1) manifest the prosecutor's intention to call attention to the defendant's failure to testify, or (2) are such that the jury would naturally and necessarily take them as a comment on the defendant's failure to testify. Williams v. Lockhart, 797 F.2d 344, 347 (8th Cir.1986). On a habeas petition, we review any improper reference to determine if it had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. Brecht v. Abrahamson, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1722, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). 37 After reviewing the trial transcript, we conclude, as did the Missouri Court of Appeals and the district court, that the prosecutor's comment did not violate Parkus' fifth amendment rights. The prosecutor made the comment in response to the defense attorney's arguments concerning lack of motive and deliberation; the gist of the prosecutor's responsive argument was that Parkus' actions prior to the slaying (e.g., bringing strips of bedding into Steffenhagen's cell) revealed motive and deliberation. Even if the comment were improper under Williams, we cannot say that it had a substantial or injurious effect or influence upon the jury's verdict. The prosecutor made a single short comment about petitioner's silence during a trial spanning several days. Cf. Brecht, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 1722. The district court did not err in rejecting this claim.
38 Parkus challenges on due process grounds other comments by the prosecutor which made it seem that the prosecutor personally believed this defendant deserved the death penalty more than others he had prosecuted. See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (prosecutors and defense attorneys must refrain from interjecting personal beliefs into case presentation). Parkus procedurally defaulted on this claim by failing to raise it either on direct appeal or in Rule 29.15 proceedings. He fails to demonstrate cause and prejudice to avoid the procedural bar. Even if we considered the merits of this claim, we would reject it because the petitioner cannot show that absent the improper remark[s] the jury's verdict would have been different. Hamilton v. Nix, 809 F.2d 463, 470 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1023, 107 S.Ct. 3270, 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987). 39
40 Parkus argues that counsel in his Missouri appeal provided ineffective assistance by failing to brief four of the arguments presented in the instant petition. Because we reject, infra, the claims which Parkus asserts appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve, we deny this point of error.
41 Parkus contends that his fifth, eighth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated by the exclusion for cause of several jurors who admitted during voir dire examination that they might be affected by the possibility of a sentence of death in this case. See Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 50, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2528-29, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) (excluding all jurors affected by the prospect of the death penalty deprives defendant of right to an impartial jury). Parkus failed to raise this issue on direct appeal or in his Rule 29.15 proceedings, and does not allege sufficient cause to remove the bar. No miscarriage of justice would result from our failure to review this claim on the merits. 42
43 The trial court issued the following mitigating evidence instruction: 44 If you unanimously find that one or more mitigating circumstances exist sufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances found by you to exist, then you must return a verdict fixing defendant's punishment at imprisonment for life.... 45 Parkus v. Delo, No. 90-1007C(3) (E.D.Mo.), Resp. Ex. B, at 32 (Instr. 19). Parkus contends that this jury instruction violated his eighth amendment rights by permitting the jury to weigh mitigating evidence against the aggravating circumstances only if all jurors agreed on the existence of one or more mitigating circumstances. See Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988). 46 The district court found that Parkus procedurally defaulted this claim by failing to present it on direct appeal or in his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We agree that petitioner procedurally defaulted this claim and demonstrates no ground to remove the default. 47 We also observe that this court recently upheld the constitutionality of the same instruction in Battle v. Delo, 19 F.3d 1547, 1562 (8th Cir.1994). Based on Battle, we would reject Parkus' claim on the merits. 48
49 Parkus argues that the trial court violated his due process rights by issuing jury instructions which defined beyond a reasonable doubt as requiring proof which leaves one firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. The district court ruled that Parkus defaulted on this claim by failing to present it to the state court. We agree that Parkus failed to preserve the issue or allege cause and prejudice to remove the default.
50 Parkus contends that the jury improperly found as aggravating circumstances three prior convictions, where neither judge nor jury ever found that the convictions were serious and assaultive. 51 This claim has no merit because all three prior convictions--for assault with intent to rape, assault with intent to rob, and rape and sodomy--were obviously both serious and assaultive. We also reject Parkus' claim that certain aggravating circumstances were duplicative.