908 F.3d 845
2d Cir.2018Background
- In April 2002 Blair Garner drove Karl Keith to a supposed drug buy; Keith was shot in the head, left for dead, but survived and told police Garner shot him. Officer Gover answered Keith’s phone at the scene; Garner called and told the officer he was “on the parkway.”
- Police arrested Garner the next day, seized from his car $6,300 in rubber‑banded cash matching the money Keith/ Merkelson had prepared ($9,700 originally) and $1,140 on Garner’s person, plus a portfolio of collection notices. About $2,260 of the alleged drug money was unaccounted for.
- At trial Garner testified he was home by 9:45–10:00 p.m. and never left; the prosecution introduced Garner’s phone records showing calls to his home at 10:28 and 10:31 p.m. Jury convicted Garner on five counts (including attempted murder and robbery); he received maximum sentence.
- Garner pursued state appeals and a CPL § 440.10 motion asserting trial‑counsel ineffective assistance (seven specific faults, including failure to obtain phone records pretrial); the County Court denied relief. He then filed a federal habeas corpus petition.
- The district court granted habeas relief solely on the ground that trial counsel’s failure to obtain and use phone records pretrial was prejudicial under Strickland. The State appealed to the Second Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garner) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural default of ineffective‑assistance claim | County Court’s denial did not preclude federal review | County Court’s opinion invoked procedural bar under CPL 440.10 | Circuit: not clearly based on procedural bar; federal review permitted |
| Admissibility of new evidence/evidentiary hearing (Pinholster) | District court properly held hearing for de novo § 2254(a) review | Pinholster bars reliance on new evidence for AEDPA § 2254(d)(1) review | Circuit: hearing and consideration of new evidence allowed for de novo (non‑§ 2254(d)) assessment; district court limited § 2254(d)(1) review to state record |
| Strickland deficiency re: phone records (trial counsel failed to obtain/review/object) | Failure to obtain/use records was deficient and prejudicial; records were "devastating" and could have changed testimony or been used offensively to show timeline inconsistency | Even assuming deficiency, overwhelming trial evidence makes any prejudice not substantial | Circuit: assumed deficiency arguendo but rejected prejudice; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Use of juror post‑verdict statements in prejudice analysis | Juror statements show counsel’s error was decisive | Such statements reflect idiosyncratic decision process and are unreliable for objective Strickland inquiry | Circuit: district court erred to rely on juror post‑trial statements; prejudice must be assessed objectively |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (prejudice requires substantial, not merely conceivable, likelihood of different result)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (federal habeas courts generally cannot rely on evidence not presented to the state court when applying AEDPA § 2254(d)(1))
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (de novo consideration of prejudice where appropriate)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice inquiry must be objective and tied to strength of prosecution’s case)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (solemn in‑court statements carry strong presumption of verity)
- Lindstadt v. Keane, 239 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (habeas relief is inappropriate where conviction is supported by overwhelming evidence)
- Waiters v. Lee, 857 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 2017) (standards of review for district court habeas rulings)