Opinion ID: 206501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel: Sperm Evidence

Text: Finally, Jewett also argues that the SJC was unreasonable in rejecting his claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to develop and present to the jury a theory of the case based on the three notes he claims establish that the sperm found in the victim's underwear and vagina were deposited twenty-four to thirty-six hours before her death, rather than much closer to death as the prosecution's rape-murder theory required. The SJC's decision rejecting this claim was reasonable. Jewett argues that trial counsel should have used the sperm age evidence to impeach McGilvray, the state's chemist. But as the SJC found, Jewett, 813 N.E.2d at 458, the three notes were themselves inconsistent as to when the sperm was deposited, with estimates ranging from Fri. afternoon, or less than twelve hours before death, to approximately 36 hours or so before death. Nothing in the notes established that there was a report by the state police lab stating that the sperm was deposited twenty-four or even twelve hours before death. Nor was it clear that McGilvray herself, rather than Trooper Berna or Detective Craig, concluded that the sperm was deposited several hours before death. The notes did not impeach the testimony of McGilvray, who in any event testified not that the sperm was deposited just before death, but that because the sperm samples had no tails, she [was] unable to draw any conclusion about the age of the sperm. Jewett, 813 N.E.2d at 457 (emphasis added). Jewett presents alternative theories of defense he says trial counsel could have argued based on the sperm age evidence, but he provides no evidence that he argued them to the SJC. [6] In fact, both the SJC and the district court found Jewett had not adequately explained how the sperm age evidence would either support his positional asphyxiation defense or lead to any alternate theory that plausibly explained the evidence linking Jewett to the victim's death. Jewett, No. 05-11849, slip op. at 12; Jewett, 813 N.E.2d at 459. Finally, Jewett also argues that we need not defer to the SJC's evaluation of the sperm evidence because the depositions allowed by the federal district court clarified the evidence. The decision to grant discovery for good cause is within the district court's discretion. Rules Governing § 2254 Cases Rule 6(a); Teti v. Bender, 507 F.3d 50, 60 (1st Cir.2007). We think the issue is close in this case whether Jewett could show good cause for discovery, because the deficiencies of the sperm age evidence are apparent from the face of the SJC's opinion. But whether the discovery was warranted or not, the district court itself noted, and after reviewing the record we agree, that the discovery has not uncovered anything that would alter [the SJC's] analysis. Jewett, No. 05-11849, slip op. at 14-15. Affirmed.