Askew 293940 v. Phillips
1:06-cv-00708
| W.D. Mich. | Jul 25, 2014Background
- In June 1998 James Askew stabbed and killed Shane Venegar; Askew was convicted of second-degree murder, that conviction was reversed on limited grounds, and he was retried and convicted of voluntary manslaughter (3–15 years).
- Key trial evidence: multiple eyewitnesses placed Venegar unarmed when he entered Askew’s home; forensic pathologist testified death was from a single stab wound; officers found blood at the scene and Askew with blood on his shoes; Askew made extrajudicial statements implicating himself.
- Pretrial/suppression: Askew signed a Miranda waiver and gave a statement to Investigator Barbara Simon; he later claimed he could not read the waiver without glasses and sought suppression.
- Defense efforts: Askew sought (late) testing of blood on his shirt to show it was his blood (supporting self-defense); the trial court denied a last-minute continuance to obtain testing; trial counsel advised Askew not to testify.
- Postconviction: Askew exhausted state remedies, pursued habeas claims in federal court asserting Miranda violation, denial of right to present a defense (blood testing), prosecutorial misconduct (alleged perjured testimony), insufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and cumulative error; the magistrate judge recommended denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Miranda waiver admissibility | Askew: he could not read the waiver (no glasses), so his statements were involuntary and should be suppressed | Prosecutor/state: Simon read rights, Askew read and signed form, waiver was voluntary and knowing; trial court found waiver valid | Court: waiver was voluntary and knowing; state-court ruling was reasonable — no habeas relief |
| Right to present a defense (blood testing) | Askew: denial of continuance/pretrial relief prevented blood testing of shirt, deprived him of ability to prove self-defense | State: request was untimely, testing would have required sending shirt out and delay; Askew never obtained testing or made offer of proof | Court: denial was within trial court discretion; claim speculative and not a constitutional violation — no habeas relief |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (perjured testimony) | Askew: officer Kroma gave inconsistent testimony between trials, so prosecutor presented/allowed perjured testimony | State: inconsistencies were minor and impeachment material; defense cross-examined; no proof prosecutor knew of falsity | Court: no evidence of actual perjury or knowing use of false testimony; claim fails — no habeas relief |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Askew: evidence was insufficient to convict of manslaughter — events outside dwelling and provocation not proven | State: eyewitnesses, Askew’s statement, and forensic evidence support manslaughter verdict | Court: viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt — claim fails |
| Ineffective assistance (trial & appellate counsel) | Askew: counsel failed to seek second suppression hearing, failed to timely request DNA testing, advised him not to testify, failed to present ophthalmology expert, and appellate counsel failed to obtain transcripts/challenge jury note | State: many issues were strategic/futile (waiver already decided), speculative (no testing), counsel reasonably advised against testimony, appellate omissions concerned meritless or nonprejudicial claims | Held: state courts reasonably applied Strickland; Askew fails both deficiency and prejudice prongs — no habeas relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (voluntary and knowing Miranda waiver standard)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA deference; unreasonable application standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (state-court adjudication presumed on merits; §2254(d) application)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (AEDPA limits on habeas review)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (right to present a defense)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (excluding evidence when probative value outweighed)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (review under §2254(d) limited to state-court record)