Danielson v. Lee
15-3222
| 2d Cir. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Khalil Danielson, a Bloods gang member, was convicted in 2002 of second-degree depraved-indifference murder for the fatal shooting of Kenneth Andrews; the jury acquitted him of intentional murder but found he fired multiple shots.
- At trial prosecutors presented evidence that Danielson and others plotted to kill Andrews due to alleged gang switching; testimony placed Danielson at the scene firing rounds though not the final head shot.
- Danielson argued at trial he was not present; he was indicted on multiple counts but convicted only of depraved-indifference murder under New York law.
- New York appellate process: Appellate Division affirmed (2007) and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed (2007); conviction became final in 2008.
- In a 2009 pro se § 2254 habeas petition, Danielson argued the evidence was insufficient under People v. Feingold because depraved indifference is a mens rea requirement, and his conduct supported, at most, manslaughter.
- The district court denied the petition as unexhausted and procedurally barred; the Second Circuit affirmed, finding neither cause-and-prejudice nor actual-innocence exceptions excuse the default.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Danielson exhausted state remedies on his Feingold-based sufficiency claim | Danielson: raising the claim to the Court of Appeals would have been futile because the claim was unpreserved below | Respondent: Appellate Division’s non-preservation is an adequate state ground and Danielson failed to present the claim to the Court of Appeals | Court: No exhaustion; Danielson failed to show cause for bypassing the Court of Appeals and thus procedural default stands |
| Whether cause and prejudice excuse the procedural default | Danielson: futility of raising unpreserved claim to Court of Appeals constitutes cause | Respondent: Danielson should have presented the claim on his granted leave to appeal; Court of Appeals could review preservation rulings | Court: No cause shown—Danielson should have given Court of Appeals the chance to decide preservation |
| Whether actual innocence excuses procedural default because Feingold changed the law | Danielson: intervening legal change means he is actually innocent of depraved-indifference murder (at most manslaughter) | Respondent: No new reliable evidence of factual innocence; trial record shows planning and intentional shooting | Court: Actual-innocence exception not satisfied; evidence of intent and planning preclude relief |
| Whether the federal courts may reach the merits despite procedural bars | Danielson: merits should be considered under cause/prejudice or actual innocence exceptions | Respondent: Procedural default and lack of exhaustion bar review | Court: Denied review—procedural default not excused; affirmed district court |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Feingold, 852 N.E.2d 1163 (N.Y. 2006) (holds depraved indifference requires mens rea of indifference to grievous harm)
- People v. Register, 457 N.E.2d 704 (N.Y. 1983) (prior interpretation of depraved indifference focused on factual setting)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (U.S. 1999) (exhaustion doctrine requires presenting claims to state’s highest court)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (standard for actual-innocence gateway requires new, reliable evidence)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1986) (actual innocence may excuse procedural default in extraordinary cases)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1998) (cause-and-prejudice standard for procedural default)
- DiSimone v. Phillips, 461 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2006) (discusses standards for cause and prejudice and actual innocence in habeas context)