Davis v. Lafler
658 F.3d 525
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Davis was convicted in Michigan state court of carjacking aided and abetted by another and of receiving and concealing stolen property; the armed-robbery count was not guilty.
- Evidence showed Davis arrived at the restaurant with Washington and a third person, entered the restaurant, and then joined a carjacking where Washington demanded victims exit at gunpoint.
- Davis did not order food and watched the carjacking from the restaurant; he then rode away in the stolen SUV with Washington.
- Approximately two-and-a-half hours later, Davis and Washington were found stripping the SUV in a garage; Davis was found underneath the vehicle.
- Defense counsel chose not to call Marco Washington as a witness despite Davis’s request; Davis later challenged this as ineffective assistance of counsel in a §2254 habeas petition.
- The district court denied relief; a prior panel reversed, but the full Sixth Circuit vacated and reheard en banc, reaffirming denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for aiding and abetting | Davis asserts insufficient evidence to prove aiding and abetting. | Lafler contends the evidence supports a reasonable inference of involvement. | No relief; evidence, viewed with AEDPA, supports a rational jury finding. |
| Ineffective assistance for not calling Washington | Davis claims failure to call Washington was prejudicial and deficient. | Lafler argues counsel's strategic decision was reasonable given risks and Fifth Amendment issues. | Denied; no deficient performance established under Strickland as to trial counsel's decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency review: rational factfinder could convict beyond reasonable doubt)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice components for ineffective assistance)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (unreasonable-application and AEDPA deferential standard guidance)
- Brown v. Palmer, 441 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2006) (mere presence insufficient; circumstantial evidence must show actual aid/encouragement)
- Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 597 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. 1999) (circumstantial evidence and inferences may establish intent; close association and flight as factors)
- Fuller v. Anderson, 662 F.2d 421 (7th Cir. 1981) (standing near crime and looking around insufficient to prove lookout)