Devaughn v. Graham
1:14-cv-02322
E.D.N.YJan 19, 2017Background
- On Jan. 9, 2000 Alex DeVaughn and an accomplice allegedly robbed chain-wearing victims in Queens; a shot was fired and Roy Douglas later died. DeVaughn was tried and convicted of two counts of second-degree murder (felony-murder theory) and two counts of first-degree robbery; sentenced to concurrent 25-to-life terms for murder and concurrent 12-year terms for robbery, with the robbery terms to run consecutively to the murder terms.
- Prosecution witnesses included cooperating participants (Pinkney, Everett) who testified about a series of similar robberies before and after the charged offense, and a getaway driver treated as an accomplice; the trial court gave limiting instructions about the uncharged-crimes testimony.
- Defense sought to introduce third-party culpability evidence (a possible drug-related motive) by cross-examining surviving victim Wayne Wright; the trial court excluded that line of inquiry as speculative.
- The trial court misstated the felony-murder jury instruction using "or" instead of the statutory conjunctive "and;" defense counsel did not object at trial.
- DeVaughn exhausted several claims on direct appeal and in coram nobis proceedings; he then filed a federal habeas petition raising: admission of uncharged crimes, Confrontation Clause/right to present a defense, consecutive-sentencing Eighth Amendment challenge, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court denied the petition in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of testimony about uncharged crimes | Admission of similar-acts testimony was highly prejudicial and violated due process | Evidence was admissible to explain witness relationships and disclosures; limiting instructions were given | Admissible under state law and not so fundamentally unfair to violate due process; claim denied under AEDPA |
| Confrontation Clause / cross-examination about drug motive | Excluding cross-examination into a drug-related motive violated the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses | Claim was not preserved at trial (no contemporaneous constitutional objection); state contemporaneous-objection rule applies | Claim exhausted but procedurally defaulted (no contemporaneous objection); petitioner failed to show cause/prejudice or actual innocence; claim barred |
| Right to present a defense (third-party culpability) | Excluding evidence of an alternative drug-related killer deprived DeVaughn of the right to a complete defense | The theory was speculative and properly excluded under state balancing rules to avoid confusion/prejudice | Exclusion was consistent with state law and not an arbitrary deprivation of a constitutional right; claim denied under AEDPA |
| Consecutive sentences (Eighth Amendment) | Running robbery terms consecutively to murder terms was cruel and unusual punishment | Sentencing discretion lies with state law; cumulative 37-years-to-life is not grossly disproportionate | Claim unexhausted but meritless on the merits; sentence not barbaric or vastly disproportionate; claim denied |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (failure to raise multiple trial errors) | Appellate counsel omitted significant, obvious issues (e.g., jury charge error, other omissions) causing prejudice | Strategic choices about which issues to press on appeal are presumptively reasonable; omitted claims were weak or speculative | Appellate coram nobis denial was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland/AEDPA; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (constitutional due process narrowly limits admission of other-acts evidence)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA standards for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application")
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel framework)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (appellate counsel need not raise every nonfrivolous issue)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state-court rulings under AEDPA)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause and testimonial evidence)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (actual innocence gateway to overcome procedural default)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (Eighth Amendment proportionality principles)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (right to present a defense is subject to reasonable evidentiary restrictions)