Opinion ID: 2504
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Habeas Corpus Proceedings in Federal Court

Text: On April 9, 2001, Wilson filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court. He contended, inter alia, that his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) eliciting testimony from Erra that he feared Wilson would retaliate against him for testifying; (2) opening the doorby attacking the police investigation of the robberyto the admission of Erra's identification of Wilson's mug shot from a mug book on the day of the robbery; (3) not requesting the redaction of Wilson's mug shot, which showed him with a booking plate hung around his neck, before the photograph was admitted into evidence; (4) moving into evidence an unrelated police report documenting Wilson's October 1994 arrest; and (5) opening the door to the admission of Wilson's prior convictions by eliciting testimony from Younger regarding Wilson's good character. The District Court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy for a Report and Recommendation (R & R). On January 16, 2003, Magistrate Judge Levy submitted his R & R, which recommended denying habeas relief. Wilson v. Mazzuca, No. 01-CV-2246, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27420, at  (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2003) ( Wilson III ). With respect to Wilson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Magistrate Judge Levy concluded that (1) GaNun's tactical decisions that, in hindsight, might be considered ill-conceived did not run afoul of the Sixth Amendment, and (2) Wilson failed to demonstrate that he suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's actions. Id. at . In an Order filed May 30, 2003, Judge Trager, after an independent review of the record, adopted the R & R in its entirety and denied Wilson's habeas corpus petition. Wilson v. Mazzuca, No. 01-CV-2246, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27421, at -2 (E.D.N.Y. May 30, 2003) ( Wilson IV ). Wilson appealed the District Court's judgment, and on January 5, 2005, another panel of this Court vacated the denial of the petition. See Wilson v. Mazzuca, 119 Fed.Appx. 336, 338 (2d Cir.2005) ( Wilson V ). That panel concluded that it was unable to assess with confidence whether strategic considerations accounted for certain acts or omissions by defense counsel that had the effect of substantially strengthening the state's otherwise weak case. Id. at 337 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, that panel vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded with instructions to give Wilson's trial counsel an opportunity to explain his performance. Id. at 338; see also Sparman v. Edwards, 154 F.3d 51, 52 (2d Cir.1998) (We believe that a district court facing the question of constitutional ineffectiveness of counsel should, except in highly unusual circumstances, offer the asserted ineffective attorney an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, in the form of live testimony, affidavits, or briefs.). On remand, the District Court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Levy, who appointed pro bono counsel to represent Wilson. Judge Levy held a hearing on July 13, 2005, at which GaNun, Wilson's trial counsel, testified about his conduct at trial. [4] On June 30, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (the Second R & R), this time recommending that habeas relief be granted. Wilson v. Mazzuca, No. 01-CV-2246, 2006 WL 4401020 at , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95883, at -2 (E.D.N.Y. June 30, 2006) ( Wilson VI ). Magistrate Judge Levy determined that GaNun made serious errors that allowed the jury to learn of the otherwise inadmissible photo array ID and Wilson's criminal history. . . . [and that counsel's] acts were not the result of a deliberate and reasonably informed trial strategy. Id. 2006 WL 4401020 at , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95883, at . These errors, according to the Second R & R, prejudiced Wilson by allowing the jury to learn that an eyewitness had picked Wilson out of a photo array the day of the robbery, that [Wilson] had a criminal record, and that the chief prosecution witness was afraid of him. Id. 2006 WL 4401020 at , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95883, at . When compared to the serious weaknesses of the prosecution's case, Magistrate Judge Levy concluded that defense counsel's errors . . . `undermine[d] confidence in the outcome' of the trial, id. 2006 WL 4401020 at -16, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95883, at  (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052), and he therefore recommended that the petition be granted. Judge Trager declined to adopt the Second R & R. See Wilson VII, 2007 WL 952037, at , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22492, at . Despite largely agreeing with Magistrate Judge Levy that GaNun's performance was objectively unreasonable, [5] Judge Trager ruled that Wilson suffered no prejudice. Specifically, the District Court concluded: [A]lthough (1) there was no physical evidence connecting defendant to the scene, (2) defendant made no inculpatory statement and (3) . . . Erra's identification was cross-racial, these factors, even taken together, would not have created a reasonable doubt given the evidence against petitioner. In light of Erra's strong identification that was based on a ten-minute opportunity to see the robbers and that was not undermined on cross-examination, there is not a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different absent GaNun's errors. Ultimately, one cannot defeat something with nothing, especially when the nothing is a weak alibi with no supporting evidence. Id. 2007 WL 952037, at , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22492, at -67. Pursuant to our disposition in Wilson V, jurisdiction was automatically restored by letter from Wilson's appellate counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, on April 23, 2007, and the Clerk of Court assigned this case to the present panel in the ordinary course. See Wilson V, 119 Fed.Appx. at 338.