Jenkins v. Bergeron
824 F.3d 148
1st Cir.2016Background
- Shaun Jenkins was convicted in Massachusetts state court in 2005 of first-degree murder and sentenced to life; he did not testify at trial.
- During trial the judge conducted a colloquy with Jenkins, who acknowledged understanding his right to testify and had no questions.
- Post-conviction Jenkins moved for a new trial claiming his attorney unilaterally decided he would not testify; he submitted affidavits from himself and counsel stating counsel advised against and "decided not" to call him.
- The trial judge denied the new trial motion; the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed, holding Jenkins bore the burden to prove his waiver of the right to testify was not knowing and intelligent and concluding the waiver was purposeful and informed.
- Jenkins filed a federal habeas petition arguing (inter alia) that the SJC erred and that the burden should lie with the Commonwealth; the district court denied relief and applied AEDPA deferential review.
- The First Circuit affirmed, holding AEDPA deference applied and that there is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent governing the specific standard or burden for waiver-of-testimony claims in these circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jenkins) | Defendant's Argument (Bergeron/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SJC adjudicated the waiver claim on the merits | SJC did not address Jenkins' specific claim that counsel unilaterally prevented him from testifying, so de novo review required | SJC did decide the claim on the merits by finding the waiver was purposeful and informed | SJC adjudicated the claim on the merits; AEDPA deference applies |
| Proper standard for determining whether a waiver to testify was knowing and intelligent | A defendant cannot be deemed to have waived the right if counsel alone decided against testimony; waiver must be proven invalid by prosecution | State courts may evaluate the record and trial judge's colloquy and counsel discussions to find an informed waiver | No clearly established Supreme Court standard governs this factual context; state court application not unreasonable |
| Who bears the burden of proof on invalid waiver of right to testify | Jenkins: burden should be on prosecution to show valid waiver; defendant cannot be presumed to have waived by silence or counsel action | Commonwealth: defendant bears burden to prove waiver was not knowing and intelligent (consistent with SJC precedent) | No clearly established Supreme Court law assigning burden here; SJC's assignment to defendant not contrary to Supreme Court precedent |
| Whether habeas relief is warranted under AEDPA | Jenkins: SJC misapplied federal law and his case merits de novo review and relief | Commonwealth: AEDPA bars relief because no clearly established Supreme Court rule was violated | Court denied habeas relief; affirmed district court refusal to grant relief under AEDPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 941 N.E.2d 56 (Mass. 2011) (state-court decision affirming conviction and finding waiver was purposeful and informed)
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (right to testify is a fundamental constitutional right)
- Thompson v. Battaglia, 458 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2006) (no uniform Supreme Court standard on waiver-to-testify claims; varied state/federal approaches)
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) (general rule against presuming waiver of fundamental rights — right-to-counsel context)
- Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (1962) (counsel-related waiver principles in right-to-counsel cases)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (speedy-trial waiver principles cited for general waiver propositions)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (presumption that federal claim was adjudicated on the merits when state opinion decides related matters)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (limits on using generalized standards for clearly established law under AEDPA)