Chisholm v. Uhler
1:16-cv-05394-WFK
E.D.N.YJul 14, 2022Background:
- On April 17, 2006, Nathanial Davis was shot outside 103-11 Farmers Blvd.; Phenton Edwards identified Petitioner as one shooter. A .380 shell was recovered at the scene.
- On June 30, 2006, Petitioner and a co-defendant assaulted Amadou (Amadou) Diallo in his basement apartment; police recovered a defaced .38 and a .380 pistol from Diallo's residence on July 2, 2006; ballistics linked the .380 to the Davis shooting.
- Two Queens County indictments (April shooting and June burglary/assault) were consolidated; Petitioner was tried in 2009 and convicted of murder in the second degree, attempted murder, various weapons counts, burglary and assault; sentenced in 2011 to consecutive long terms including 25‑to‑life for murder.
- The Appellate Division (Second Dept.) affirmed in 2015; Court of Appeals denied leave; coram nobis and CPL 440.10 motions were denied on the merits or as procedurally defective.
- Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition raising prosecutorial misconduct (Brady/Rosario and inflammatory remarks), ineffective assistance of trial/appellate counsel, judicial error (memorial badges; juror arrest inquiry; admission of evidence), consolidation/self-incrimination, and sufficiency of the evidence. The district court denied the petition in full (July 14, 2022).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chisholm) | Defendant's Argument (Superintendent/Uhler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct (Brady/Rosario; remarks; bolstering; burden shifting) | Prosecution withheld exculpatory/ Rosario material and made inflammatory, improper remarks that deprived him of a fair trial | Many claims unexhausted or unpreserved; where preserved the conduct did not render trial fundamentally unfair | Most prosecutorial-misconduct claims were unexhausted or procedurally barred; preserved claims fail on the merits — no due process violation |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to object, cross‑examine, investigate, move to sever, challenge weapon chain) | Counsel failed to preserve/contest critical evidence and testimonial weaknesses, prejudicing the defense | Many subclaims are unexhausted; those adjudicated by state courts were reviewed under Strickland/AEDPA and were not deficient or prejudicial | State court reasonably applied Strickland; ineffective-assistance claims denied |
| Judicial error/abuse of discretion (admission of evidence; memorial badges; juror arrest inquiry) | Admission of prejudicial items and courtroom displays (memorial badges) and failure to question jurors about co‑defendant’s arrest denied fairness | Evidence-admission claims were unpreserved and constitute state‑law evidentiary rulings; memorial‑badge and juror‑inquiry claims unexhausted or procedurally barred | Evidentiary rulings are state-law matters not cognizable absent fundamental unfairness; claims barred or without merit |
| Consolidation/severance and self-incrimination | Consolidation forced a choice: testify on burglary but not on murder, violating Fifth Amendment rights | Joinder was statutorily permitted; Petitioner failed to show actual prejudice or fundamental unfairness from consolidation | Federal claim fairly presented but joinder did not produce actual prejudice; denial of severance did not violate due process |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (murder) | Eyewitness Edwards was unreliable and uncorroborated; evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Eyewitness ID, ballistics linking the .380, circumstantial and corroborating police testimony provided sufficient evidence | Under Jackson/AEDPA deference, a rational juror could convict; sufficiency claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (exhaustion requirement for federal habeas)
- Daye v. Attorney Gen. of State of N.Y., 696 F.2d 186 (2d Cir. 1982) (how to fairly present federal claims to state courts)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (cause-and-prejudice standard for procedural default)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual-innocence gateway to review of defaulted claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to state-court Strickland rulings under AEDPA)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1 (2011) (AEDPA deference applied to sufficiency claims)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (state evidentiary rulings not grounds for habeas absent fundamental unfairness)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (when ineffective-assistance claims can establish cause for default)
- Turner v. Artuz, 262 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2001) (limits of coram nobis relief in state appellate courts)