Kelvin Rosa v. Administrator East Jersey State Prison
141 F.4th 477
| 3rd Cir. | 2025Background
- Kelvin Rosa was convicted in New Jersey for burglary and attempted murder related to a check-cashing store incident based significantly on prior-bad-acts evidence from other burglaries and a police chase.
- At trial, the prosecution introduced extensive evidence of Rosa’s alleged involvement in other burglaries to link him to a gun used in the charged crimes, although New Jersey law admits such evidence for limited purposes only (such as proving identity).
- Rosa’s defense counsel failed to object or to request timely and specific limiting instructions when the prosecution exceeded these evidentiary bounds.
- Rosa was convicted and later filed for federal habeas relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to challenge extensive prior-bad-acts evidence.
- The state habeas court denied relief, but the District Court granted habeas, finding both deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland.
- The state appealed, arguing deference to counsel’s strategy and adequacy of limiting instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was constitutionally deficient | Counsel failed to object/request limits | Counsel made strategic decisions deserving deference | Counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable |
| Whether prejudice resulted from counsel’s deficiencies | The evidence against Rosa was weak | Limiting instructions cured any possible prejudice | Counsel’s lapses likely affected the verdict |
| Adequacy of limiting instructions under NJ law | Instructions were untimely, nonspecific | Two limiting instructions, jurors presumed to follow | Instructions were inadequate due to timing and lack of detail |
| Application of AEDPA deference to state court decisions | State ruling was unreasonable | Federal court must defer to state court findings | State habeas court’s decision was unreasonable under AEDPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (sets high bar for federal habeas relief—unreasonable application must be beyond fair-minded disagreement)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (recognizes potential prejudice from prior-bad-acts evidence)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009) (explains doubly deferential standard for counsel performance in habeas review)
- State v. Cofield, 605 A.2d 230 (N.J. 1992) (limits admissibility of prior-bad-acts evidence in New Jersey)
- State v. Fortin, 745 A.2d 509 (N.J. 2000) (examples of acceptable limiting instructions for other-crimes evidence)
- State v. Reddish, 859 A.2d 1173 (N.J. 2004) (prior-bad-acts evidence is highly prejudicial under NJ law)
- State v. Gillispie, 26 A.3d 397 (N.J. 2011) (requires timely and tailored limiting instructions for 404(b) evidence)