Muhammad v. Tucker
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170836
S.D. Fla.2012Background
- Askari Abdullah Muhammad (formerly Thomas Otis Knight) is a capital defendant on death row for the 1974 Gans murders and for the 1980 murder of Officer Burke; resentencing occurred in 1996.
- In the 1996 resentencing, Detective Greg Smith testified and relied on a sworn statement by the helicopter pilot, which was based on hearsay from out-of-court declarants.
- Muhammad challenged the Confrontation Clause, ineffective assistance, Brady/Giglio, prosecutorial conduct, and various other claims under AEDPA, seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- The district court granted habeas relief only as to the sentencing Confrontation Clause claim; all other claims were denied.
- The court held that the state violated Roberts by admitting out-of-court statements without demonstrating unavailability or reliability, and that the error was prejudicial and not harmless under Brecht/Chapman standards.
- The order requires the state to resentence Muhammad within one year or commute the death sentences to life.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause at resentencing | Muhammad argues Detective Smith relied on the helicopter pilot’s sworn statement without cross-examination. | State asserts procedural bars and that the testimony was admissible under existing law. | Relief granted: Confrontation Clause violation entitles sentencing relief. |
| Applicability of Roberts standard and wrongful use of unavailability | State failed to demonstrate unavailability of Ojeda; hearsay violated confrontation rights. | State contends error was harmless and procedurally barred. | Violation found; proper cross-examination right applicable to sentencing; not harmless. |
| AEDPA review framework and scope of merits | De novo review warranted for Confrontation Clause due to lack of merits adjudication. | AEDPA deference governs if merits adjudicated; otherwise defer to state court. | De novo review applied for the Confrontation Clause claim; other claims denied under AEDPA. |
| Ring/Ex Post Facto and other major constitutional challenges | Ring invalidates Florida scheme; Ex Post Facto violated by retroactive aggravator. | Ring not retroactive under Schriro; Ex Post Facto arguments foreclosed by precedent. | Ring claim foreclosed; Ex Post Facto argument rejected under controlling precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1980) (test for reliability and unavailability of declarants in hearsay)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause reliance on eyewitness testimony; overturns Roberts approach)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (requires cross-examination of certain affidavits unless unavailable)
- Proffitt v. Wainwright, 685 F.2d 1227 (11th Cir. 1982) (right to cross-examine witnesses at capital sentencing)
- Magwood v. Warden, 664 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2011) (de novo review when state court did not adjudicate merits)
- Mason v. Allen, 605 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 2010) (plenary review where state court did not adjudicate the merits)
- White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1992) (unavailability and corroboration requirements for prior testimony)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors on habeas)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1986) (standard of review for prosecutorial argument in habeas cases)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (ineffective assistance and duty to prepare mitigation evidence)
- Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1994) (due process and informing jury about future dangerousness)