Kamp v. Shanley, 9:18-cv-00943

Kamp, a New York state prisoner, was indicted on six counts of third-degree criminal sexual act for allegedly licking his 16‑year‑old stepdaughter between July–September 2012.
Prosecution introduced evidence that Kamp had previously touched the victim while applying a prescribed rash ointment; the trial court admitted this as nonpropensity background/grooming evidence with a limiting instruction.
Police recorded a pretrial interview in which Kamp denied abuse but admitted certain touching; Kamp’s counsel did not pursue forensic authentication of the recording at trial.
A jury convicted Kamp on all counts; the court imposed six consecutive 3‑year terms (18 years total) plus post‑release supervision.
Kamp’s direct appeal and a CPL §440.10 motion (challenging the recording’s authenticity and counsel’s failure to authenticate it) were denied by the Appellate Division and the New York Court of Appeals; he then filed this §2254 habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance, improper admission of uncharged crimes, and erroneous denial of an adjournment request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to authenticate recorded interview	Kamp: counsel was ineffective for not investigating/authenticating the recording; denial without a §440 hearing was unreasonable	State: trial record shows corroborating victim testimony and vigorous defense; no reasonable probability of different outcome; hearing not required under CPL or AEDPA	Denied — state courts reasonably applied Strickland; no prejudice shown; federal habeas deferential review applies; no federal hearing warranted under Pinholster/AEDPA
Admission of uncharged rash‑touching evidence	Kamp: evidence of prior touching was unfairly prejudicial and violated due process	State: evidence was admissible as nonpropensity background/grooming evidence; limiting instruction given; probative value outweighed prejudice	Denied — admissible under New York Molineux doctrine; no clearly established Supreme Court rule forbids admission; state ruling reasonable
Denial of adjournment after new counsel retained	Kamp: denial violated his right to counsel of choice and prejudiced sentencing	State: request untimely; not preserved on appeal; trial judge has discretion over scheduling; no shown prejudice	Denied — procedurally barred by state contemporaneous‑objection rule; on the merits trial court’s denial was within discretion and caused no prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (explains AEDPA standards for "contrary to" or "unreasonable application" of federal law)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits §2254(d)(1) review to the state‑court record for evidentiary hearings)
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (federal courts need colorable claims and diligence in state court to warrant evidentiary hearings under AEDPA)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (trial judges have broad discretion to deny continuances/delays)
People v. Molineux, 61 N.E. 286 (N.Y. 1901) (prior bad‑acts rule permitting admission for nonpropensity purposes)