Joel Dufresne v. Carmen Palmer
876 F.3d 248
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Dufresne, a Michigan prisoner, was convicted in 2006 of multiple counts of first- and third-degree criminal sexual conduct based on acts against his then-girlfriend, Angela Wiertalla; he was sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
- Evidence at trial included testimony about Dufresne’s membership in the "Creativity Movement" (a white‑supremacist group) and recorded calls in which Dufresne apologized for abusive acts.
- Postconviction proceedings: Ginther hearing denied; state courts denied relief on subsequent motions; federal habeas petition raised five grounds (ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; state court evidentiary ruling and alleged witness intimidation; Doyle/post‑Miranda silence; prosecutorial misconduct re: Creativity Movement).
- District court denied habeas relief, finding procedural default for many claims and rejecting the remaining claims on the merits; Dufresne sought a certificate of appealability (COA).
- The Sixth Circuit examined (1) whether procedural defaults were appropriately found and whether Dufresne overcame them, (2) whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising certain trial‑level claims, and (3) whether Doyle and prosecutorial‑misconduct errors warranted relief, and denied a COA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dufresne) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural default of ineffective‑trial‑counsel claims (grounds 1(a)–(f)) | Trial counsel failed to investigate, impeach witnesses, present favorable witnesses/evidence, and object to Creativity Movement evidence. | Many subclaims were either not raised in state court or were barred by Mich. Ct. R. 6.508(D)(3); some claims were exhausted but meritless. | COA denied: reasonable jurists cannot debate procedural default for most subclaims; the one ambiguous claim (failure to object to Creativity Movement evidence) lacks merit. |
| Procedural default re: motion in limine and witness intimidation (ground 2) | Trial court’s in limine ruling and alleged state intimidation deprived him of his right to present a defense and confront witnesses. | Claims were denied by state court under Rule 6.508(D)(3) and are procedurally defaulted; evidence of intimidation is inadmissible or post‑appeal. | COA denied: claims are procedurally defaulted and Dufresne failed to show cause/prejudice or actual innocence. |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (ground 3) | Appellate counsel failed to raise a range of meritorious issues on direct appeal (those underlying grounds 1–2). | Appellate counsel reasonably selected issues; omitted issues were not clearly stronger or would not have changed outcome. | COA denied: state court’s resolution was not an unreasonable application of federal law; omitted issues lack a reasonable probability of success on appeal. |
| Doyle/post‑Miranda silence (ground 4) | Prosecutor elicited testimony about Dufresne requesting a lawyer, violating Doyle v. Ohio. | Any references were not used to impeach, were brief, not emphasized by prosecutor, and any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence. | COA denied: even assuming Doyle error, the error was harmless beyond debate. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct re: Creativity Movement (ground 5) | Repeated references to ties with Creativity Movement and testimony about related investigations deprived him of a fair trial. | Much of the testimony was admissible under state law; prosecutor did not make improper arguments; evidence of investigation was true and not exploited unfairly. | COA denied: admission of most evidence was proper under state law; prosecutor did not commit reversible misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for certificate of appealability when petition denied on procedural grounds)
- Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (COA gatekeeping function; assess debatability)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference standard to state‑court decisions)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (cause and prejudice rule for procedural default)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual‑innocence gateway to overcome procedural default)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless‑error standard on habeas review)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (prohibition on using post‑Miranda silence to impeach)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (standard for prosecutorial‑misconduct due‑process claims)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (limits on federal habeas re: state‑law evidentiary rulings)
- Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) (state‑court factual findings bind federal habeas court)