Frazier v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
663 F. App'x 211
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2003 Jerry Frazier was tried and convicted for the first‑degree murder of Jose Oquindo; verdicts included murder, conspiracy, and possession of an instrument of crime.
- Witnesses at trial: Oquindo’s fiancée (saw two unidentified shooters), Juan Carlos Colon (saw Frazier shoot Oquindo), and George Medina (childhood friend of Frazier—testified Frazier was not present and explained a 911 statement taken out of context).
- Laura Garrett (Medina’s wife) was at the scene, present in court, but not called by either side; she later signed an affidavit saying she saw Frazier running away without a gun and told defense counsel so.
- At trial Frazier personally confirmed in a colloquy that he and counsel had decided not to call additional witnesses.
- On PCRA review the state courts denied relief (finding the colloquy waived the claim that counsel was ineffective for not calling Garrett); federal habeas was denied and district court found counsel’s decision reasonable and Garrett’s proposed testimony not clearly exculpatory or prejudicially material.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Frazier received ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call Laura Garrett | Counsel was ineffective for not calling Garrett, whose testimony would have been exculpatory (saw Frazier running away unarmed) | Counsel reasonably exercised trial strategy in not calling Garrett; colloquy showed Frazier waived calling witnesses | Court held counsel’s performance was not deficient; no evidentiary hearing required; habeas denial affirmed |
| Whether the state court’s procedural waiver bars de novo review on federal habeas | Frazier: Superior Court’s waiver ruling was procedural, so AEDPA deference should not apply and federal court should review de novo | State: Superior Court adjudicated claim on merits (or at least its ruling is reasonable) | Court avoided choice of standard; ruled that even under de novo review Frazier’s claim fails |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to probe counsel’s subjective motives | Frazier: record insufficient to explain counsel’s choice; hearing needed to probe why Garrett was not called | State: objective record supports reasonable strategic explanations; no hearing required | Held no evidentiary hearing required; objective reasons on record suffice |
| Whether Garrett’s affidavit establishes prejudice under Strickland | Frazier: Garrett’s testimony would have created reasonable probability of a different outcome | State: Her testimony would be duplicative or unreliable and could harm defense; no prejudice shown | Held prejudice not reached because counsel not deficient; court also doubted Garrett’s reliability and potential harmful consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to counsel decisions; standards for federal habeas ineffectiveness review)
- Taylor v. Horn, 504 F.3d 416 (discusses standards of review on habeas)
- Buehl v. Vaughn, 166 F.3d 163 (deficient performance standard in this circuit)
- Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F.3d 36 (deference to reasonable strategic decisions)
- Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (presumption counsel acted competently)
- Grant v. Lockett, 709 F.3d 224 (standard for reviewing denial of evidentiary hearings)
- Branch v. Sweeney, 758 F.3d 226 (examples where evidentiary hearing was ordered)
- Siehl v. Grace, 561 F.3d 189 (examples where evidentiary hearing was ordered)
- Thomas v. Varner, 428 F.3d 491 (objective inquiry may obviate need for hearing)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (limits on post hoc rationalizations for counsel strategy)