ENGRAM v. MASON
2:21-cv-01834
W.D. Pa.Mar 11, 2025Background
- In 2008 Jesse Engram was convicted in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania of first‑degree murder and an unlicensed‑firearm offense; he received life plus a consecutive term and is serving at SCI‑Greene.
- Two eyewitnesses initially identified Engram but both recanted at trial; Sergeant William Wagner identified Engram at trial though his statements evolved over time.
- Trial counsel chose not to present an alibi (Engram had filed a notice naming his mother and former landlord), and did not introduce certain surveillance footage or challenge some out‑of‑court statements.
- Engram pursued post‑conviction relief (PCRA), raising ineffective‑assistance claims about the alibi, surveillance video, hearsay/motive evidence, Wagner’s identification, and allegedly deceptive photographs; the Superior Court denied relief in 2021.
- Engram filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising six grounds (IAC for alibi investigation/withdrawal; failure to introduce video; failure to object to prejudicial hearsay; prosecutor use of false evidence; fabrication of Wagner ID; suppressed video). The magistrate denied the petition but granted a COA only as to the IAC alibi‑investigation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural default / exhaustion | Engram contends several claims were fairly presented or excused by Martinez (IAC of PCRA counsel) or actual‑innocence (Schlup) gateway. | Respondents say portions of Grounds One, Four, Five, and all of Six are defaulted/waived under Pennsylvania procedures and AEDPA. | Court: Portions of Ground One (failure to withdraw alibi), entire Ground Four, portions of Ground Five (direct due‑process claim about photos and fabricated testimony) and Ground Six are procedurally defaulted; Martinez does not excuse Ground Four; Schlup actual‑innocence gateway not met. |
| Ground One (alibi investigation) | Engram: trial counsel failed to adequately investigate/present the alibi and should have withdrawn the notice if not pursuing it. | Commonwealth: counsel investigated, reasonably declined to present the weak/allegedly self‑serving family alibi for strategic reasons; withdrawal issue was not properly presented. | Denied on the merits for the investigated/presenting claim (state court decision reasonable). Certificate of appealability granted for the remaining IAC‑investigation issue. The failure‑to‑withdraw subclaim is defaulted. |
| Ground Two (surveillance video) | Engram: omitted video would have impeached Wagner, shown the excited utterance timing, and undercut Wagner’s claim about clothing/lighting. | Commonwealth: video (roof camera) was grainy, limited, not clearly exculpatory; counsel effectively impeached witnesses without it. | Denied — state court reasonably concluded counsel’s decision was strategic and the video was not clearly exculpatory or prejudicial enough to establish Strickland prejudice. |
| Ground Five (Wagner ID fabrication / counsel failure) | Engram: Wagner fabricated or revised identification and counsel ineffectively failed to suppress/challenge it. (Separate photo‑manipulation/due‑process allegation was also raised.) | Commonwealth: trial counsel extensively impeached Wagner’s credibility; any photo questions/other due‑process claims were waived/untimely. | Denied as to the exhausted IAC portion (counsel’s impeachment was adequate); the direct due‑process/photo allegations were waived/defaulted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual‑innocence gateway to overcome procedural default)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (limited cause‑and‑prejudice rule where PCRA/postconviction counsel’s ineffectiveness can excuse default of trial‑IAC claim)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standard for federal habeas review of state‑court adjudications)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default doctrine; cause and prejudice standard)
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (exhaustion requires presentation to state’s highest court)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual‑innocence exception to AEDPA timeliness)
- Reeves v. Fayette SCI, 897 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2018) (new evidence from counsel’s failure to present can be counted as Schlup‑gateway evidence)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to state court factual findings and presumption in favor of reasonable‑strategy explanations)