755 F. Supp. 2d 335
D. Mass.2010Background
- Brown petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on November 24, 2008, while serving two consecutive life sentences for first degree murder and unlawful possession of a shotgun and ammunition.
- Magistrate Judge Boal issued a Report and Recommendation on August 18, 2010 recommending dismissal of the petition.
- The district court considers whether to adopt the R&R and to issue a Certificate of Appealability (COA) regarding Brown's claims.
- Brown asserted five due-process claims challenging his convictions; the court reviews these in light of the R&R.
- The court adopts the R&R and partially grants a COA on several issues while denying a COA on the post-arrest silence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insufficiency of the evidence | Brown contends the Commonwealth failed to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. | O'Brien argues the evidence was sufficient to support convictions. | COA issued for insufficiency of the evidence. |
| Post-arrest silence evidence | Brown argues evidence of post-arrest silence violated due process. | O'Brien argues admissibility and no due process violation. | COA denied; petition defaulted procedurally. |
| Failure to instruct on voluntary intoxication, incompetency, and voir dire on voluntariness | Brown claims lack of voluntary intoxication instruction and related defects violated due process. | O'Brien contends no error in jury instruction and trial handling. | COA issued on these three related claims. |
| Overall admissibility and treatment of trial-record challenges | Brown asserts multiple due-process challenges to trial conduct and evidence. | O'Brien maintains proper consideration and procedural posture. | Court adopts R&R; COA granted on the listed issues except post-arrest silence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (standards for substantial showing in COA analysis)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (deferential standard for COA: debatable among jurists)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (low threshold for COA when reasonable jurists could differ)