Freeman v. Kadien
684 F.3d 30
2d Cir.2012Background
- Freeman was convicted in New York of second-degree vehicular and second-degree assault, per se DWI, common law DWI, and leaving the scene.
- Evidence included a blood draw conducted pursuant to a warrant later found invalid under state law.
- The Fourth Department suppressed the per se DWI conviction due to the invalid warrant but admitted the blood-draw evidence for other counts, deeming it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Freeman sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing the state-law harmlessness ruling was an unreasonable application of federal law.
- The district court denied relief; on appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed, holding state-law harmlessness is not reviewable on federal habeas review.
- The court distinguished federal harmlessness standards for federal-law errors from state-law errors, concluding the latter are not cognizable in federal habeas review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state-law harmlessness decision is reviewable on federal habeas | Freeman argues the state-law harmlessness ruling is federal-law error. | Freeman's argument on federal review is misplaced; the decision concerns state law. | Harmlessness of state-law error is not reviewable in federal habeas. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) (standard for harmlessness review of federal errors)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmlessness standard in collateral review)
- Wood v. Ercole, 644 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2011) (application of harmlessness in state-court context)
- Ayala v. Leonardo, 20 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1994) (distinguishing state-law error from federal consequence)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas limits on state-law questions)
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (due process and evidentiary concerns in trial)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (distribution of truth-seeking vs. exclusionary rule purposes)
- Zarvela v. Artuz, 364 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2004) (due process and fair-trial considerations in state-law contexts)
- Taylor v. Curry, 708 F.2d 886 (2d Cir. 1983) (state evidentiary- due process considerations within habeas review)