Horace Branch v. Cindy Sweeney
2014 WL 3293716
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- On Nov. 4, 1993 Horace Branch entered an apartment at 260 Prince St., Newark; Randolph Mosley was later fatally shot and Branch was arrested the next day in possession of the murder weapon. Branch testified he went unarmed to obtain a $50 refund for fake cocaine, that Patricia Lee drew a gun, a struggle ensued, Lee’s gun discharged and he grabbed a gun and fled.
- The prosecution’s theory was that Branch entered to rob occupants, shot Mosley, and testimony from several eyewitnesses (including Lee and Murphy) supported that narrative; the jury convicted Branch of felony murder/related counts but acquitted him on some robbery counts.
- Before trial Branch provided his lawyer with two sworn pretrial statements from potential witnesses (Abdul Samee and Stan Robinson) that would have corroborated Branch’s account; trial counsel did not call them at trial.
- Branch raised ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) in state post-conviction relief (PCR) proceedings, submitting the two statements and requesting an evidentiary hearing; the PCR court denied an evidentiary hearing and relief, concluding the testimony would have been cumulative or part of trial strategy; the Appellate Division affirmed.
- Branch petitioned for federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the District Court denied relief adopting the state court reasoning without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Third Circuit granted a COA and reviewed de novo whether the state courts unreasonably applied federal law.
- The Third Circuit held the state courts unreasonably applied Strickland: trial counsel’s failure to call Samee and Robinson had no apparent strategic justification on the record and there was a reasonable probability their testimony would have changed the outcome; the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing to develop counsel’s reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Branch) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to call Samee and Robinson was constitutionally deficient | Counsel unreasonably omitted two exculpatory witnesses whose pretrial statements corroborated Branch’s version | Decision may have been strategic; testimony would be cumulative or witnesses had credibility issues | On the record, failure to call them lacked apparent strategic justification; performance was deficient (state courts unreasonably applied Strickland) |
| Whether prejudice under Strickland exists (reasonable probability of different outcome) | The witnesses would have corroborated Branch and undermined prosecution’s thin, inconsistent case | Gaps in Branch’s story (why he entered unarmed) and inconsistencies reduce likelihood of different verdict | There was a reasonable probability the testimony would have altered the verdict given prosecution weaknesses; state courts’ prejudice finding was unreasonable |
| Whether AEDPA deference bars de novo review | If state court unreasonably applied federal law, district court must review de novo | State courts applied Strickland reasonably; AEDPA deference appropriate | State courts’ application was unreasonable under §2254(d)(1), so district court should have reviewed de novo |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing in federal court was required | An evidentiary hearing is needed to develop why trial counsel did not call the witnesses (counsel absent from the record on that question) | Post-hoc rationalizations could explain omission; no hearing necessary | District Court abused its discretion by not holding a hearing; remand for an evidentiary hearing directed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (federal habeas relief barred unless state decision was unreasonable)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits expansion of state-court record on AEDPA review; requires entertaining counsel’s possible reasons)
- Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12 (discusses deference to counsel and double-deference under AEDPA)
- Grant v. Lockett, 709 F.3d 224 (3d Cir.) (failure to call eyewitnesses can be non-cumulative and prejudicial)
- Rolan v. Vaughn, 445 F.3d 671 (3d Cir.) (IAC reversal where omitted witness would have supported an improbable defense)