Cormier v. Saba, 953 F. Supp. 2d 274

Cormier was convicted in Massachusetts state court of rape, assault with intent to rape, and six counts of assault and battery related to two victims; charges tied to EW and GJ, with CS’s charges dropped.
EW and GJ were attacked in Chinatown, Boston; EW was photographed and then line-up-identified; GJ testified to a confrontation and later identification issues.
Defense cross-examination sought to probe whether a man identified as GJ’s boyfriend was her pimp; the court limited questioning to avoid humiliation, restricting use of the term pimp.
Cormier did not testify; a trial colloquy affirmed his valid waiver of the right to testify; he later argued the waiver was invalid due to counsel’s deficient advice.
Post-trial, Cormier appealed; motions included suppression of identifications, severance of counts, and a motion for a new trial; appellate rulings affirmed conviction and denial of motions.
Petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) was denied; court applied AEDPA deferential review for state-court adjudications and denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Cross-examination limitation and confrontation	Cormier claims his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by restricting questioning about pimp.	Cormier asserts the restriction prejudiced the defense and denied a full cross-examination.	No constitutional violation; limitation was reasonable and non-prejudicial.
Knowing and intelligent waiver of right to testify	Waiver was not knowing and intelligent due to lack of proper counsel advice after GJ's limited cross-examination.	Trial court properly found waiver knowing and intelligent; no entitlement to new hearing.	Waiver were knowingly and intelligently made; no relief.
Motion to suppress line-up identification	EW’s identification was unduly suggestive and violated due process.	Line-up was not unnecessarily suggestive; totality of circumstances supported reliability.	No due process violation; identification permissible under Biggers factors.
Denial of motion to sever (joinder)	Joinder prejudiced against Cormier by mixing related cases involving different victims.	Joinder appropriate due to common scheme and related facts; limits prejudice.	No due process violation; joinder reasonable given related offenses and pattern.
Standard of review under AEDPA	Court should review de novo the federal question instead of AEDPA deferential review.	Appeals Court's review was adjudication on the merits; deferential review applies.	Deferential review under AEDPA applied; denial of petition affirmed.

Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (limits on cross-examination; two-step test for prejudice and harmlessness)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (exposure of witness’ motive as part of cross-examination)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (right to testify; state may require knowing, intelligent waiver)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (knowing and intelligent waiver requires awareness of consequences)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938) (presumption against waivers of fundamental rights; burden on petitioner)
United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1986) (misjoinder and prejudice considerations; fair trial standard)
Webber v. Scott, 390 F.3d 1169 (1st Cir. 2004) (harmless error in joinder when witnesses are cross-admissible)
Brown v. Ruane, 630 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2011) (extreme cases; not all errors merit relief; harmlessness inquiry)
Di Benedetto v. Hall, 272 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (standard for evaluating cross-examination limitations)
Sanna v. Dipaolo, 265 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (credibility determinations; deferential to state findings)