Nardi v. Pepe
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23330
1st Cir.2011Background
- Nardi was convicted of first-degree murder in Massachusetts for his mother's death and later sought federal habeas relief.
- At trial, autopsy by Dr. Weiner supported asphyxia by suffocation; Dr. Weiner did not testify in person due to medical issues, but his autopsy report informed Dr. McDonough's opinion.
- Dr. McDonough testified that the cause of death was consistent with suffocation, basing part of his opinion on the autopsy report and indicating Weiner shared that conclusion.
- The prosecution presented evidence of Nardi's conflict with his mother, her plans to move, body concealment, and blood-trail cleanup.
- Nardi defended that his mother died of a heart attack and that he panicked and concealed the death; he offered his own medical expert on heart disease.
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that McDonough's opinion based on permissible sources was admissible and that portions referencing Weiner's autopsy were not preserved for federal review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autopsy report as testimonial hearsay | Nardi contends McDonough relied on a testimonial autopsy report in violation of Crawford. | State Courts held McDonough's opinion rested on permissible foundations; references to the autopsy were not dispositive. | Not clearly established at the time that such reliance violated the Confrontation Clause. |
| Clearly established Federal law under §2254(d)(1) | SJC decision was not grounded in clearly established federal law; Crawford extended to autopsy evidence. | SJC cited Crawford and thus engaged clearly established federal law as of its decision. | Crawford did not clearly establish the autopsy or partial-hearsay reliance as unconstitutional at the time. |
| Effect of later cases on the era's standard | Subsequent Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming show autopsy reports as testimonial, affecting the outcome. | Those cases were decided after the SJC decision; not clearly established at that time. | Post-Crawford decisions did not render the earlier ruling an unreasonable application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation rights)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2009) (forensic affidavits as testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (forensic reports as testimonial evidence)
- United States v. De La Cruz, 514 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2008) (autopsy reports; evidentiary foundations)
- Likely v. Ruane, 642 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2011) (uncertainty of law post-Crawford expansions)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (clearly established federal law in habeas context)
- United States v. Turner, 591 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2010) (circuits' treatment of expert reliance on hearsay)