Joseph Anthony Saitta, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
M2017-00081-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Sep 8, 2017Background
- Petitioner Joseph Saitta was convicted by a Warren County jury of rape of his two-year-old daughter and sentenced to 58 years at 100% after trial; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- Nurses Hodges and Martin observed blood, anal tears, and paper towels with a fluid they suspected was semen; Our Kids PA Littrell found anal tears she believed were more than constipation could explain.
- ER physicians diagnosed anal fissures from constipation; Dr. Fontenot (one ER physician who testified at trial) saw only a tiny fissure and thought a large stool could cause such injury; Dr. Logan (initial ER physician) was not called at trial.
- TBI testing found semen on the victim’s shorts; DNA matched petitioner. The rape kit collected at Our Kids was never tested (or trial counsel did not pursue testing).
- Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for multiple tactical and investigative failures (e.g., not calling certain witnesses, not testing the rape kit, not objecting to certain testimony). The post-conviction court denied relief; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Saitta) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Investigator Carter’s comment about petitioner refusing a polygraph | Comment was inadmissible and prejudicial; counsel should have objected | Counsel made a tactical choice not to draw attention to the remark | Court held counsel’s choice was tactical and not deficient; no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel erred by not objecting to Littrell’s hearsay reference to coworkers’ opinions | Hearsay bolstered Littrell’s opinion and prejudiced jury | Counsel reasonably avoided highlighting that testimony | Court held failing to object was tactical; no deficient performance or prejudice |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not locating/calling Dr. Logan or introducing his records; and for not testing Our Kids rape kit | Failure to present ER opinion and test evidence could have undermined State’s case | Counsel’s investigator made extensive, good-faith efforts to locate Dr. Logan; testing costs and strategic evaluation justified not testing kit | Court found counsel reasonably prepared and investigative efforts adequate; absence of test results or Logan testimony did not show prejudice |
| Whether cumulative errors deprived petitioner of a fair trial | Combined omissions and failures undermined reliability of verdict | State: challenged items were tactical choices after preparation; petitioner failed to prove prejudice | Court found no cumulative prejudice; affirmed denial of post-conviction relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (objective standard for counsel performance)
- Finch v. State, 226 S.W.3d 307 (Tenn. 2007) (counsel must render reasonably effective assistance)
- Lane v. State, 316 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard for post-conviction findings)
- Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (requirement that petitioner produce uncalled witnesses at post-conviction hearing)
- Howell v. State, 185 S.W.3d 319 (Tenn. 2006) (avoid hindsight; evaluate counsel conduct from counsel’s perspective)
- Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) (prejudice requires reasonable probability outcome would differ)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (mixed question review; deference to post-conviction court’s factual findings)