Opinion ID: 780494
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Present Habeas Petition

Text: 44 After exhausting his state remedies, Grotto filed his present habeas petition in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, requesting that his conviction be vacated on the grounds that (1) the trial court's refusal to reopen the case precluded him from presenting exculpatory evidence, (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, (3) the trial court improperly admitted evidence concerning prior uncharged rapes, (4) the trial court improperly admitted testimony by a school psychologist, and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors deprived Grotto of a fair trial. In an opinion reported at 203 F.Supp.2d 142 (2002), the district court rejected all of Grotto's claims except the first. 45 As to the denial of leave to reopen, the district court found that the new testimony that Grotto sought to introduce after resting his case would have been conclusive on a significant issue because Rochelle would ... have definitively testified that Grotto was not at the Noe townhouse. Id. at 151. The court concluded that the refusal to reopen the case could only have resulted from the trial judge's `myopic insistence upon expeditiousness,' id. (quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964)), and constituted a substantial impairment to Grotto's defense, depriving him of due process, see 203 F.Supp.2d at 152. 46 The district court conditionally granted the writ, ordering the State to release Grotto unless it granted him a new trial within 90 days. Judgment was entered accordingly. This Court stayed the judgment pending resolution of this appeal.