Hammonds v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
712 F. App'x 841
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Artez Hammonds was convicted of capital murder in Alabama; jury recommended death, trial court sentenced him to death. DNA, fingerprint, and circumstantial evidence linked him to the crime scene.
- Hammonds invoked his Fifth Amendment right and did not testify; prosecutor Doug Valeska had a history of improper remarks and was precluded by court order from commenting on Hammonds’s silence.
- During trial Valeska said “Let him testify” (after an objection was sustained and the court ordered the jury to disregard); later Valeska referenced Hammonds’s time in prison during closing argument.
- Alabama courts recognized the prosecutor’s misconduct but held any error harmless based on curative jury instructions; three dissenting justices would have granted a new trial.
- Hammonds exhausted state remedies, sought federal habeas relief; district court denied relief. On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the Griffin and Williams errors actually prejudiced Hammonds under Brecht.
Issues
| Issue | Hammonds’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s “Let him testify” comment violated Griffin (comment on silence) | Comment was an intentional, manifest Griffin violation requiring relief | Characterized as an offhand stray word, harmless given instructions | Court: Statement was Griffin error but not prejudicial under Brecht; no habeas relief |
| Whether prosecutor’s prison reference violated Estelle (impairing presumption of innocence) | Single reference undermined presumption of innocence and compounded Griffin error | Single, contextual reference not Williams error and harmless | Court: Not a Williams violation; in any event not prejudicial under Brecht |
| Whether corrected trial-transcript page (replacement page 228) may be considered on collateral review | Hammonds: only original page should be considered because corrected page likely was not before state court | State: corrected page should be part of the record for review | Court: Denied State’s motion to rely on corrected page 228; review limited to original record |
| Standard of harmless-error review on federal habeas where state court applied Chapman on direct appeal | Hammonds: state harmlessness finding unreasonable under AEDPA and requires relief | State: Chapman finding was correct; errors harmless beyond reasonable doubt | Court: Applied Brecht (collateral-review standard); petitioner must show actual prejudice and failed to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (prosecutor may not comment on defendant’s silence)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (defendant should not be made to appear in prison garb; presumption of innocence concerns)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error standard on direct review)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (harmless-error standard on collateral review; petitioner must show substantial and injurious effect)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (§2254(d)(1) review limited to record before the state court)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (substantial and injurious effect standard roots)
- United States v. Villabona-Garnica, 63 F.3d 1051 (context matters for prison references; brief references may not be prejudicial)
- United States v. Russo, 796 F.2d 1443 (jury instruction that bars consideration of defendant’s silence can be adequate even if not the exact Carter language)