Opinion ID: 2808502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Detective Hall's Testimony

Text: Logan's final arguments center on the testimony of Detective Hall. According to Logan, by testifying as an expert on the pimp-prostitute relationship and the local prostitution market, Detective Hall impermissibly based his testimony on hearsay by recounting his conversations with . . . unidentified prostitutes. Logan contends that admitting this testimony amounted to a flagrant[] violat[ion] of his confrontation rights. Logan's final claim falters right out of the gate; he concedes that these arguments were not raised on direct appeal.5 That concession is fatal to his claim. Procedural default -- an adequate and independent state law rule -- bars federal habeas relief so long as it is both firmly established and regularly followed. See Janosky v. St. Amand, 594 F.3d 39, 44 (1st Cir. 2010). Massachusetts regularly enforces the rule that a claim 5 This argument was first made in Logan's motion for a new trial. On review of the Superior Court's denial of that motion, the Massachusetts Appeals Court recognized that no argument about the hearsay basis of Detective Hall's expert opinion was timely raised, and it reviewed such claims to determine whether a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice was . . . created as a consequence of the alleged error. Barbosa II, 2013 WL 1103912, at . The Appeals Court held that the introduction of this evidence did not work such miscarriage. Id. at -2. - 14 - not raised is waived. Gunter v. Maloney, 291 F.3d 74, 79 (1st Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we may only review this claim if Logan establishes cause and prejudice with respect to the procedural default, or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 81 & n.3 (1st Cir. 2004). Logan makes no credible argument on either front.