Anthony Rodriguez v. Greg Gossett
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21071
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Anthony Rodriguez was convicted in Illinois (1997) of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 60 years based primarily on the victim K.O.’s testimony and medical evidence of anal injury.
- DNA reports analyzing semen on a blanket (one report finding most samples excluded Rodriguez; another inconclusive/mixed) were produced by the state police shortly before trial but were not introduced at trial.
- During closing, the prosecutor suggested Rodriguez might have washed clothes to destroy evidence; defense counsel then, in the jury’s presence, objected and stated the prosecutor knew there was sperm on various items that was not presented.
- The trial judge repeatedly instructed the jury that attorney arguments are not evidence and to disregard statements not backed by trial evidence.
- On direct appeal the Illinois Appellate Court found counsel’s remark deficient under Strickland but held Rodriguez suffered no prejudice given the strength of the state’s case and repeated curative instructions; convictions were affirmed.
- Rodriguez sought federal habeas relief alleging ineffective assistance; the district court denied relief under AEDPA and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s comment referencing unadmitted sperm evidence rendered counsel ineffective under Strickland | Counsel’s remark introduced highly damaging evidence to the jury and prejudiced the outcome; reasonable probability of a different result without the remark | State: remark was deficient but any error was not prejudicial given strong testimonial and medical evidence and curative jury instructions | Court: Counsel’s remark was deficient but no Strickland prejudice; state court’s conclusion was not an unreasonable application of federal law |
| Whether limiting instructions cured any prejudice from the comment | Jury likely could not ignore suggestion of other physical evidence; instruction insufficient | Repeated, explicit curative instructions mitigated prejudice; juries are presumed to follow instructions absent overwhelming probability otherwise | Court: Multiple instructions and the isolated, ambiguous nature of the remark made prejudice unlikely |
| Whether counsel’s failure to introduce DNA reports (potentially exculpatory) constituted ineffective assistance | Counsel should have sought admission of DNA reports once their existence was revealed | Issue not preserved in state and federal proceedings; district court found related claims procedurally defaulted | Court: Defendant waived/failed to present this argument; cannot be reviewed on habeas here |
| Whether AEDPA permits federal habeas relief where state court applied Strickland but denied relief | Rodriguez: state ruling unreasonably applied Strickland given impact of the remark | State: appellate ruling was objectively reasonable under AEDPA deference | Court: AEDPA deference applies; state court decision was within bounds of reasonable application and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance test)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (clarifies Strickland deficiency and prejudice standards)
- Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1 ("objectively unreasonable" standard under AEDPA)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (highly deferential standard; state-court rulings must be beyond fairminded disagreement)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (state courts have latitude applying Strickland)
- Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (presumption that juries follow curative instructions)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA standards for federal habeas review)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (limits on habeas relief where state court applied federal law reasonably)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (prejudice from visible, inflammatory evidence may not be cured by instruction)
- Jackson v. Frank, 348 F.3d 658 (Seventh Circuit discussion of AEDPA unreasonableness)
- Maus v. Baker, 747 F.3d 926 (limiting-instruction skepticism where evidence is highly prejudicial)
- United States v. Ciesiolka, 614 F.3d 347 (limiting instructions insufficient for extreme prejudice)
- United States v. Vance, 764 F.3d 667 (expressing limits of remedial value of limiting instructions)
- Hawkins v. Mitchell, 756 F.3d 983 (misleading statements requiring specific curative action)