Howard v. Horn
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156528
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- In 1989 Melvin Howard was convicted of first-degree murder; his death sentence was vacated in 2011 and he was resentenced to life without parole. The murder conviction rested largely on one eyewitness, Hezekiah Sermons.
- Howard filed a federal habeas petition raising nine claims; Magistrate Judge Sitarski recommended denial and the District Court adopted that R&R, overruling Howard’s objections to four claims (A, B, C, E).
- Claim A: ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IAC) for failing to investigate/present mental‑health and background evidence that Howard asserts would support lesser homicide defenses (provocation/heat of passion; diminished capacity; imperfect self‑defense).
- Claim B: Batson challenge — Howard alleged the prosecutor used peremptory strikes discriminatorily and that trial/appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to press Batson objections.
- Claim C: prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument (various comments about witness military service, failure to call a witness, faulting defendant for not producing evidence, appeal to sympathy/public safety) and related IAC for not objecting.
- Claim E: IAC for failing to timely request a jury instruction that no adverse inference be drawn from Howard’s decision not to testify (Carter instruction); Pennsylvania Supreme Court found performance deficient but no prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IAC for failing to investigate/present mental‑health/background evidence (Claim A) | Howard: evidence of mental retardation, PTSD, personality disorder would support manslaughter/diminished‑capacity defenses and undermine guilt | Commonwealth: presenting mental‑health evidence would undercut trial strategy of asserting actual innocence and would not satisfy objective elements of the lesser defenses | Denied — counsel reasonably pursued an actual‑innocence strategy; mental‑health evidence would not likely produce prejudice or satisfy elements of lesser offenses |
| Batson claim and IAC for failing to litigate it (Claim B) | Howard: statistical data and evidence of a discriminatory culture in DA’s office show race‑based strikes; counsel ineffective for not preserving/raising Batson | Commonwealth: panel statistics and proffered cultural materials insufficient; prosecutor gave race‑neutral reason (age/gender) for strike; no prima facie showing | Denied — no prima facie showing; prosecutor offered race‑neutral reasons; counsel not ineffective since Batson claim lacked merit |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing and IAC for failing to object (Claim C) | Howard: numerous improper statements (vouching via military references, comments on failure to call witnesses, urging sympathy/public‑safety rationale) deprived him of due process | Commonwealth: statements were permissible responses to defense, fair inferences, and curative instructions were given; not cumulatively prejudicial | Denied — comments, considered individually and cumulatively, did not so infect the trial to deprive Howard of due process; curative instructions and context cured any potential prejudice |
| Failure to timely request Carter (no‑adverse‑inference) instruction; IAC (Claim E) | Howard: counsel’s late request deprived jury of instruction that silence cannot be used as evidence of guilt and was therefore prejudicial | Commonwealth: trial judge and PA Supreme Court found counsel’s omission unreasonable but the error was not prejudicial under federal Brecht/Strickland analysis given voir‑dire/instruction history and strong evidence | Denied — state court’s application of Strickland/Brecht was reasonable: performance deficient but petitioner failed to show substantial and injurious effect on verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice prongs)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (peremptory strikes may not be race‑based; three‑step Batson framework)
- Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 (trial court must give no‑adverse‑inference instruction upon defendant’s request)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (habeas harmless‑error standard: substantial and injurious effect)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state court Strickland determinations under AEDPA)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA standards and relation to Strickland)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (prosecutorial comment on defendant’s silence can be unconstitutional)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial misconduct must render trial unfair to violate due process)
- Commonwealth v. Howard, 645 A.2d 1300 (Pa. 1994) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision addressing Carter/instruction and counsel performance)