Opinion ID: 6499681
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Collateral Review Proceedings

Text: Thurston first pursued a direct appeal on issues that are not relevant to his habeas claims. See Thurston v. State (Thurston I), 982 N.E.2d 31, 2013 WL 297772 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (unpublished table decision). After his convictions were affirmed on direct review, he sought post‐conviction relief in state court. Thurston argued that he had been denied effective assis‐ tance of counsel at trial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Specif‐ ically, he claimed that his trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to notice the reference to case ‐889 in Exhibit 16, failing to prevent its admission into evidence at trial, and fail‐ ing to mitigate the damage caused by its admission. Thurston’s trial attorney submitted an affidavit supporting the Strickland claim, which stated that the attorney received Exhibit 16 during discovery and “didn’t notice the reference to [case ‐889] … until after the judge admitted the report into evidence and two jurors submitted questions to Crispin in‐ quiring about the second case number.” The attorney also No. 21‐1761 11 averred that he did not make a tactical decision to forego an objection, request for redaction, or jury admonishment re‐ lated to Exhibit 16. The trial court denied relief, and the Indiana Court of Ap‐ peals affirmed. The Court of Appeals did not evaluate the trial attorney’s performance; instead, it held that Thurston could not meet his burden of showing prejudice under Strickland. It stated: We acknowledge that a reference to a sperm fraction has the potential to be more problem‐ atic in a rape case than it might in a case where another type of offense, such as a property or fi‐ nancial crime, is alleged. However, in this case, the nature of a “sperm fraction” or how Thurston’s sperm fraction may have been ob‐ tained by the State was not elaborated upon or explained to the jury. There was no evidence be‐ fore the jury as to the nature of case ‐889 or Thurston’s role in that case, let alone that he was a suspect. As such, while the reference to case ‐ 889 may have permitted an inference of prior misconduct, it was too vague as to the nature of any prior criminal activity to support the forbid‐ den inference that Thurston must have raped T.K. because he had been accused of raping an‐ other. Thurston v. State (Thurston II), 110 N.E.3d 1185, 2018 WL 4003363, at  (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (unpublished table deci‐ sion). The Court of Appeals also found that the jury instruc‐ tions “undermined” Thurston’s claim of prejudice. Id. It noted: 12 No. 21‐1761 Although the jury asked questions about the reference to case ‐889 contained in Exhibit 16, the trial court did not pose those questions to Crispin, and the jury had been instructed that it was not to speculate why any of its questions had gone unasked or what the answers to its questions might have been. The jury was re‐ minded of these directives as part of the trial court’s final instructions, and the trial court fur‐ ther instructed the jury to base its verdict on the facts and the law, not on sympathy or bias. A jury is presumed to follow a trial court’s instruc‐ tions. Thurston’s speculation as to what the jury could have concluded from the reference to case ‐889 and his attempts to draw conclusions from the jury’s impasse question do not overcome the presumption that the jury followed the trial court’s instructions to base its verdict only on the evidence presented at trial and not upon speculation about its unanswered questions. Id. (citations omitted). The appellate court also found that T.K.’s version of events was corroborated by her injuries con‐ sistent with climbing a fence. Id. at . It also highlighted evi‐ dence that undercut Thurston’s defense: He initially claimed that he had never been to the park where his DNA was recov‐ ered, and he initially claimed not to recognize T.K.’s photo. Id. Overall, the appellate court concluded, “[g]iven the vague‐ ness of the isolated reference at issue, the trial court’s instruc‐ tions to the jury, and the other evidence presented at trial, our confidence in the jury’s verdict is not undermined.” Id. The Indiana Supreme Court denied review. No. 21‐1761 13 Thurston next filed a habeas petition in federal court pur‐ suant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising the same ineffective assis‐ tance claim. The district court denied the petition, holding that the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision did not “involve[] an unreasonable application of” Strickland. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Nonetheless, it acknowledged that “whether the mention of case ‐889 prejudiced Thurston is a close call” and issued a certificate of appealability. Thurston now appeals.