Costa v. Hall
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4912
1st Cir.2012Background
- Costa, then 16, was charged with two counts of first-degree murder in 1986 in Boston's North End and was transferred to adult court after a juvenile-amenability determination.
- The transfer hearing found probable cause and non-amenability; Costa faced a potential life sentence if convicted in Superior Court.
- Costa was convicted at a 1988 trial and again in 1994, each time receiving a life sentence; the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed under ch. 278, § 33E with plenary post-trial review.
- At the amenability hearing, experts testified Costa had aggressive history and maladaptive family dynamics; court concluded he was not amenable to juvenile rehabilitation.
- Storella, a key witness, gave inconsistent accounts across proceedings; the defense challenged his credibility and the transfer decision.
- Costa sought relief in state courts via § 33E and then filed a federal habeas petition in 2000, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and other claims; the district court denied relief in 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may review the state court's decision | Costa contends review is barred by independent state grounds. | Respondents argue state grounds are adequate and independent, barring review. | Yes; federal review barred by independent adequate state grounds. |
| Whether § 33E gatekeeper review was properly treated as a state default | § 33E denial was not an independent bar to federal review. | Single Justice denial was an independent adequate state ground. | Single Justice finding was independent and adequate ground. |
| Whether Costa shows cause and prejudice for procedural default | Ineffective assistance claims could excuse default as cause. | No external cause shown; prejudice not demonstrated. | No cause or prejudice shown; default stands. |
| Whether Storella's credibility issues were a new and substantial question under § 33E | Inconsistencies in Storella’s testimony could be a new basis for review. | Storella's credibility already resolved; no new substantial question. | Not new or substantial; § 33E bar applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendes v. Brady, 656 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2011) (Single-Justice gatekeeping creates an independent adequate state ground)
- Yeboah-Sefah v. Ficco, 556 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2009) (supports meaning of § 33E relating to new and substantial questions)
- Commonwealth v. Lao, 450 Mass. 215 (Mass. 2007) (substantial-risk standard for unpreserved claims)
- Commonwealth v. Gunter, 459 Mass. 480 (Mass. 2011) (new and substantial questions doctrine; § 33E context)
- Commonwealth v. Pisa, 384 Mass. 362 (Mass. 1981) (timeliness of presenting claims; early presentation required)
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 438 Mass. 290 (Mass. 2002) (standard for unpreserved claims; substantial risk of miscarriage)
- Jewett v. Brady, 634 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2011) (difference in merits when newness determined in § 33E)
- Phoenix v. Matesanz, 189 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 1999) (procedural default review limitations)