McBride v. Superintendent, Sci Houtzdale
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15856
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- McBride was convicted of first-degree murder in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, with DNA linking his wife Kelly to blood found in the apartment; authorities arrested him in Florida sixteen years after her disappearance.
- Trial occurred in 2001; the district attorney made comments suggesting McBride’s post-arrest silence, and references to interviews with FBI Agent Fritz and Officer Abbey were presented with little to no objection from defense counsel.
- Agent Fritz testified and read his notes from a May 30, 1984 interview in which McBride answered some questions and refused to answer others after Miranda warnings; the court gave a limiting instruction about the notes.
- During cross-examination of McBride, Officer Abbey’s interview was discussed; McBride answered some questions and refused others, with defense counsel declining to object.
- McBride filed a PCRA claiming ineffective assistance for failing to object to the silence references; the PCRA trial court and appellate court denied relief for lack of prejudice; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied discretionary review; McBride then pursued federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court denied and this court affirmed.
- The sole issue on appeal was whether trial counsel’s failure to object to references to post-Miranda silence constituted ineffective assistance under Strickland, viewed through AEDPA deference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to post-Miranda silence references (Fritz). | McBride argues trial counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudicial. | The PCRA court found a strategic basis and AEDPA deference supports upholding the decision. | Not an unreasonable application of Strickland under AEDPA; affirmance. |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to cross-examination referencing Abbey interview (silence). | References to silence during Abbey cross-examination violated Doyle and were prejudicial. | Cross-examination concerned voluntary responses; did not implicate post-arrest silence. | Not an unreasonable application of Strickland under AEDPA; affirmance. |
| AEDPA/Strickland framework and standard of review. | State court misapplied Strickland; relief should be granted under AEDPA. | State courts reasonably applied Strickland; deference required. | State court’s application of Strickland was reasonable under AEDPA; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Richter v. Harrington, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA deference; distinguishes application of Strickland under §2254(d))
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (clarifies invocation of Miranda rights and silence)
- Martinez v. Virgin Islands, 620 F.3d 321 (3d Cir. 2010) (Doyle-type considerations for post-Miranda silence)