Pabon v. Mahanoy
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14255
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Pabon is serving consecutive life sentences for two related Pennsylvania murders and challenged the timeliness of his federal habeas petition under AEDPA §2244(d).
- He conceded the petition was untimely but sought equitable tolling due to language barriers and lack of Spanish-language legal materials or translation in prison.
- The district court dismissed as untimely and denied tolling; the Third Circuit granted a COA on tolling and Bruton issues.
- The Bruton issue concerns admission of a non-testifying codefendant's confession (DeJesus) and potential prejudice against Pabon.
- The court held Bruton claim debatable for a COA and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on equitable tolling given alleged extraordinary language-related barriers.
- The opinion ultimately remanded to determine whether extraordinary circumstances and reasonable diligence warrant tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bruton issue debatable for COA | Pabon argues DeJesus's redacted confession implicates him. | State court found Bruton claim plainly meritless. | Yes, debatable; Bruton issue merits COA. |
| Language barrier as extraordinary circumstance | Non-English speaker with no Spanish materials or interpreters. | Unclear if barrier qualifies as extraordinary. | Yes, extraordinary circumstance; remand for evidentiary hearing. |
| Reasonable diligence shown | He pursued translation/assistance and filed after attempts. | Diligence insufficient. | Pabon demonstrated reasonable diligence; tolling appropriate pending hearing. |
| Impediment to filing under §2244(d)(1)(B) | State action impeded filing via language access denial. | Impediment not proven removed; still unresolved. | Not resolved on the merits; remanded for evidentiary development. |
| District court's need for evidentiary hearing | Factual record regarding language barriers was incomplete. | Record sufficient for ruling. | Remand for evidentiary hearing on extraordinary circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (non-testifying codefendant confession violates Confrontation Clause)
- Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186 (1987) (interlocking confessions; limits of redactions and curative instructions)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (redacted statements may cure Bruton in some contexts)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (redactions that highlight deletion may still violate Bruton)
- Vazquez v. Wilson, 550 F.3d 270 (3d Cir. 2008) (rejects bright-line rule on pronoun substitutions in Bruton contexts)
- Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2006) (language barrier plus lack of translation can be extraordinary circumstances for tolling)
- Diaz v. Kelly, 515 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (non-English speaker; language deficiency can warrant tolling with diligence analysis)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. _, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (equitable tolling framework after AEDPA)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (COA standard: substantial showing required for debatable decisions)