LaTouche v. Graham
7:10-cv-01388
S.D.N.Y.Mar 8, 2013Background
- Valery LaTouche was convicted in Rockland County Supreme Court (2005) of murder in the second degree, multiple robberies, and weapons offenses, receiving an aggregate 25-to-life sentence plus post-release supervision and penalty assessments.
- Petitioner was arrested in January 2005 after a series of robberies; he and accomplices pursued victims including a library patron, a cab driver, and a murdered cab driver (Pierre).
- Evidence at trial included written and videotaped custodial statements, as well as accomplice and victim testimony, with police officers detailing the investigation and arrest at 21 Gesner Drive.
- LaTouche moved to suppress statements as unlawfully obtained; the suppression court and state appellate court found statements voluntary and the arrest supported by probable cause, with attenuation of the taint from arrest.
- He appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which denied leave, making the conviction final in October 2009; federal habeas corpus review followed in 2010–2013.
- The petition asserted four federal claims: confrontation-clause violation from sister’s out-of-court statements, unlawful-arrest/Fourth Amendment, involuntary-confession Fifth Amendment, and legally insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause claim defaulted | LaTouche argues sister’s out-of-court statements violated confrontation rights. | State court procedural default barred review; no cause or actual innocence shown. | Claim denied as procedurally defaulted. |
| Unlawful arrest and suppression (Fourth Amendment) | Arrest lacked probable cause, tainting subsequent statements. | Stone v. Powell bars federal review absent unconscionable process; state provided full/fair opportunity. | Denied; Fourth Amendment claim not cognizable on habeas review due to full and fair state process. |
| Involuntary confession (Fifth Amendment) | Confessions were coerced and involuntary. | State courts properly found voluntariness; no overborne will after totality-of-circumstances review. | Denied on the merits; confessions were voluntary. |
| Legally insufficient evidence (due process) | Evidence failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; lack of eyewitness identification and physical proof. | Evidence, including confessions corroborated by other witnesses and experts, was sufficient. | Denied; substantial evidence supported verdict under Jackson v. Virginia standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (Supreme Court 1976) (civil-fourth amendment claims review limited when full/fair state process provided)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1979) (standard for federal review of state evidence sufficiency)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (Supreme Court 2000) (Miranda warnings and voluntariness framework; totality of circumstances)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (Supreme Court 1998) (AEDPA framework and limitations on habeas relief)
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (Supreme Court 1999) (exhaustion requirement and state remedies)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court 2000) (AEDPA deference standard for merits review)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (Supreme Court 1991) (last-reasoned-state-court doctrine for procedural default)
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (Supreme Court 2005) (staying mixed petitions; exhaustion and plain-meritless claims)
- Murden v. Artuz, 497 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2007) (procedural-default and exhaustion principles in habeas)