Ferrell v. Wall
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72918
D.R.I.2012Background
- Rhode Island moved to dismiss Ferrell’s timely habeas petition under AEDPA and its grounds were argued in court.
- The RI Supreme Court’s direct and post-conviction proceedings concerned multiple conspiracy counts and double jeopardy challenges.
- Ferrell challenged nine grounds, including Sixth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- This federal court applied 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and Walker v. Martin to assess defaults and merits.
- The court ultimately denied some grounds and granted others based on procedural default, timing, and state-law sequencing questions.
- Key factual backdrop involves a December 18, 1995 shooting, multiple defendants, and conflicted trial/appeal histories in Rhode Island state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy sentencing issue default | Ferrell argues Rule 12(b)(2) default breached merits review | State argues default under Oliveira and res judicata barred review | Not procedurally barred; merits briefing required |
| Compulsory process alibi witness | Exclusion of alibi testimony violated Sixth Amendment | Trial court properly limited testimony; no error | Denied as moot pending briefing schedule |
| Confrontation Clause cross-examination | Cross-examination limit violated due process | RI Supreme Court reasonably applied law | GRANTED; grounds dismissed as to Confrontation Clause |
| Ineffective assistance—discovery/alibi testimony | Alibi testimony exclusion prejudiced defense; ineffective assistance | No prejudice; evidence cumulative | Grounds six–eight abandoned; discovery claim in ground five denied; other claims dismissed |
| Recantation and due process (Evans recantation) | Recantation undermines verdict; due process violated | Recantation credibility upheld by RI court; no federal error | Ground nine granted for lack of relief; recantation not sufficient for habeas relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency review: no rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (Confrontation Clause: cross-examination limits require harmful impact standard)
- Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2009) (adequacy of state procedures for default must be firmly established and regularly followed)
- State v. Oliveira, 774 A.2d 893 (R.I. 2001) (RI direct appeal discussing sufficiency and double jeopardy rules in RI context)