Joseph v. Kirkpatrick, 20-3615

Jeffrey Joseph was convicted by a Kings County jury in 2010 of first‑degree manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years plus five years supervised release.
The Appellate Division (2d Dep’t) affirmed the conviction in 2016; the New York Court of Appeals denied leave in 2017.
Joseph sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (AEDPA), claiming prosecutorial misconduct on direct examination—specifically repeated references implying his gang affiliation despite a pretrial exclusion.
At trial the prosecutor asked witnesses and a detective questions that suggested a gang nexus; the trial court repeatedly sustained objections, struck testimony, and instructed the jury to disregard certain statements.
The district court denied habeas relief, concluding the state court’s rejection of the claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
The Second Circuit affirmed, applying the Darden due‑process standard and AEDPA deference, finding the prosecutor’s statements were not so egregious as to infect the trial given curative steps and the weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor's repeated references implying Joseph's gang membership so infected the trial as to deny due process	Prosecutor violated the exclusion order and repeatedly suggested gang affiliation, prejudicing the jury and denying a fair trial	Trial court cured any prejudice: objections sustained, testimony struck, jury instructed; substantial evidence supported conviction	Appellate Division’s conclusion was not objectively unreasonable under Darden/AEDPA; curative measures plus strong evidence meant no due‑process violation; habeas denied

Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial misconduct warranting habeas relief only if comments so infected trial with unfairness as to deny due process)
Jackson v. Conway, 763 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard for assessing objective unreasonableness of state court’s misconduct ruling under AEDPA)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (state court rulings deserve deference; petitioner must show unreasonable application of clearly established law)
Hawthorne v. Schneiderman, 695 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting AEDPA deference framework)
Rivas v. Fischer, 780 F.3d 529 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard of review for habeas denial reviewed de novo)
United States v. Melendez, 57 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 1995) (discussion of curative instructions and their adequacy)
People v. Joseph, 145 A.D.3d 916 (2d Dep't 2016) (appellate decision rejecting prosecutorial misconduct claim and finding curative instruction alleviated prejudice)