Gonzales v. Graham, 9:17-cv-01321

Background

Petitioner Josue Gonzales was charged with second-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon for the August 2011 shooting of Angel Olmo; prosecution relied primarily on eyewitness identifications and a photo array.
A pretrial Wade hearing and suppression motion were held and denied; five photo arrays and eyewitness testimony were admitted at trial.
At trial, eyewitness Travis Stachurski testified he saw Gonzales shoot Olmo; defense cross-examined Stachurski about grand jury statements and recalcitrance; prosecutor elicited a prior consistent statement on redirect.
Gonzales was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and weapon possession, then sentenced to 25 years-to-life (concurrent with a 15-year term).
On direct appeal the Appellate Division affirmed; the New York Court of Appeals denied leave. Gonzales filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising multiple claims.
The district court denied habeas relief under AEDPA, finding state-court decisions were not contrary to or unreasonable applications of clearly established federal law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior consistent statement (redirect of Stachurski)	Admission improperly bolstered witness; state rule bars corroboration with pretrial statements	Defense opened the door by eliciting portions of prior statement on cross; redirect was limited to context	District court: Admission did not violate due process; state-law evidentiary ruling not remotely unreasonable under AEDPA
Grand jury misconduct	Prosecutor usurped grand jury, bolstered ID, indictment should be dismissed	Petit jury conviction renders any grand jury defect harmless; claim not cognizable on habeas	Denied: conviction forecloses grand-jury relief (Mechanik/Lopez v. Riley rationale)
Ineffective assistance — no ID expert; no missing witness instruction	Counsel unreasonably failed to call an ID expert and failed to request missing witness charge	No proof expert would be available or likely to change outcome; Kirkland would be cumulative and not favorable to People	Denied: appellate determination reasonable; Strickland standard not met
Verdict weight / sufficiency	Verdict against weight due to unreliable ID and intoxication	Jury credit/weight is for state courts; sufficiency standard (Jackson) satisfied by eyewitness and physical evidence	Denied: weight claims state-law only; even under Jackson AEDPA deference supports conviction
Prosecutorial misconduct at trial	Misconduct: diluted burden, vouched for witnesses, displayed autopsy photo, jigsaw analogy	Most objections unpreserved; comments were not improper vouching or so extreme as to violate due process	Denied: claims largely procedurally barred; alternatively meritless under Darden due-process test
Photo-array suggestiveness	Array unduly suggestive (few Hispanic photos, differing backgrounds/appearance)	Array differences not significant enough to single out Gonzales; identification admissible	Denied: Appellate Division’s finding reasonable; no due-process violation
Excessive sentence / Eighth Amendment	25-to-life is harsh and excessive	Sentence within state statutory range; not grossly disproportionate under Eighth Amendment	Denied: within statutory range; not an extreme or grossly disproportionate sentence
Right to be present / jury questioning	Excluded from bench/sidebar conferences and jurors questioned collectively without unequivocal answers	Those conferences were not material stages; CPL jury-questioning claims are state-law and preserved issues lacking	Denied: absence did not affect fairness; juror-questioning claim state-law or procedurally barred

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court 2000) (AEDPA deference standard)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (Supreme Court 2004) (scope of unreasonable-application review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1979) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (ineffective-assistance test)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (Supreme Court 1986) (prosecutorial-misconduct due-process standard)
Mechanik v. United States, 475 U.S. 66 (Supreme Court 1986) (petit jury verdict cures grand-jury defects)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (Supreme Court 1991) (federal habeas review limits for state evidentiary rulings)
Lopez v. Riley, 865 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1989) (state grand jury defects not cognizable on habeas)
Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (Supreme Court 1991) (last-reasoned decision rule)
United States v. Maultasch, 596 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1979) (permitting redirect to clarify prior statements when cross opens the door)