Duguay v. Spencer, 1:03-cv-11575

Duguay, a life-sentence inmate, challenged a 1997 Massachusetts first-degree murder conviction via federal habeas corpus.
Mass. SJC affirmed the conviction in 1999; Duguay pursued post-conviction relief and various state motions alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
In 2000–2003, Duguay sought new trial and raised IAC claims; state proceedings continued with multiple denials and screenings for counsel from CPCS.
In 2003, Duguay filed federal habeas corpus action; by 2006, the federal court found IAC exhaustion issues and directed supplemental proceedings.
First Circuit later remanded to address merits of trial-counsel IAC, leading to this court’s de novo review of the trial IAC grounds and related motions.
The court ultimately denied most post-petition requests and ordered trial counsel to submit an affidavit addressing why certain witnesses were not called.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel's failure to let Duguay testify was deficient IAC.	Duguay contends he wanted to testify and counsel prevented it.	Reddington allegedly informed and advised on trial strategy; decision not to call him was strategic.	Resolved later; issues held for further affidavit-based determination.
Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling Tanya Anshewitz as an alibi witness.	Anshewitz could corroborate alibi; defense relied on alibi testimony.	Strategic decision not to call may be reasonable given record and potential cumulativness.	Strategic, but still awaiting Reddington affidavit to finalize.
Whether polygraph evidence was properly admitted given foundation issues.	Insufficient foundation for polygraph results; Dr. Abrams could bolster defense.	Mass. law requires reliable foundation; Johnson’s and Abrams’ testimony lacked verifiable reliability.	Court concluded no evidentiary hearing warranted without affidavit; denied IAC on this ground.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel; deficient performance and prejudice)
Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (defendant’s right to testify cannot be waived by counsel without defendant’s approval)
Siciliano v. Vose, 834 F.2d 29 (1st Cir. 1987) (trial strategy may explain counsel’s decision not to have defendant testify)
Commonwealth v. Stewart, 663 N.E.2d 255 (Mass. 1996) (polygraph evidence admissibility foundation requirements in Massachusetts)
Commonwealth v. Mendes, 547 N.E.2d 35 (Mass. 1989) (polygraph admissibility standards in Massachusetts)
Dugas v. Coplan, 428 F.3d 317 (1st Cir. 2005) (habeas review de novo when state courts have not ruled on IAC)
United States v. Natanel, 938 F.2d 302 (1st Cir. 1991) (deferential review of defense counsel’s performance)
Barkell v. Crouse, 468 F.3d 684 (10th Cir. 2010) (procedural briefing on evidentiary hearings in §2254 cases)
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1987) (conditional writs in habeas corpus proceedings)