Dorisca v. Marchilli, 941 F.3d 12

At a 2008 cookout in Brockton, MA, Bensney Toussaint was shot to death during a fight; Josener Dorisca fled the state and was later arrested and tried for murder.
The Commonwealth sought to use a videotaped deposition of medical examiner Dr. Kimberley Springer after reporting she would be unavailable at trial due to going into labor; the trial judge admitted the tape over Dorisca's objection.
During closing argument the prosecutor misstated two aspects of Dorisca's testimony; Dorisca moved for a mistrial which was denied and the jury convicted him of second-degree murder.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court held the trial judge erred in finding Dr. Springer unavailable but deemed the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; it also found the prosecutorial misstatements non-prejudicial under state law consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
Dorisca filed a §2254 habeas petition alleging a Confrontation Clause violation and a due-process violation from prosecutorial misconduct; the district court denied relief and granted a COA; the First Circuit affirmed under AEDPA deference.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Dr. Springer's videotaped deposition (Confrontation Clause)	Trial judge improperly concluded Springer was unavailable; admission denied live cross-examination on shooter identity and wound trajectory, prejudicing Dorisca	Deposition testimony was cumulative/corroborated; intermediate-range opinion did not incriminate Dorisca; MAC reasonably found any error harmless under Chapman/Van Arsdall	First Circuit: MAC reasonably applied Chapman/Van Arsdall; confrontation error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no habeas relief under AEDPA
Prosecutorial misstatements in closing; denial of mistrial (Due Process)	Prosecutor misstated Dorisca's testimony twice, undermining his credibility; curative instruction and denial of mistrial were inadequate	Misstatements were inaccurate but insignificant in context; jury was instructed that arguments are not evidence; MAC applied Darden and found no prejudice	First Circuit: MAC's Darden-based conclusion was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law; no due-process violation; habeas relief denied

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (establishes harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for constitutional errors)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (factors for assessing prejudice from Confrontation Clause violations)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements inadmissible absent witness unavailability and prior opportunity for cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (clarifies Crawford's testimonial framework)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (due-process test for prosecutorial misconduct: whether remarks "so infected the trial with unfairness")
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (explains AEDPA deference standard to state-court decisions)