748 S.E.2d 94
Va.2013Background
- Prieto was convicted in Fairfax County (2008) of capital murder, rape, firearm-use charges, and grand larceny, with death sentences on two capital murders; convictions were affirmed but verdict forms defective and remanded for resentencing; on remand (2010) jury again sentenced to death; habeas petition filed November 30, 2012 seeking relief.
- Habeas petition claims ineffective assistance of counsel across guilt and penalty phases, highlighting DNA artifact evidence (“12” allele) at vWA locus, anal swab testing, missing hairs, juror issues, and brain/trauma claims.
- Virginia court held the habeas petition should be denied in full, addressing each claim under Strickland v. Washington standards; some claims deemed non-meritorious or barred (e.g., Atkins).
- Court found the Palmer 2000- artifact evidence and testing pre-trial did not establish deficient performance or prejudice; other claims about diminished testing and evidence related to hairs were analyzed and rejected.
- Juror-related claims (residency and voir dire) were evaluated under non-structural-error framework; various challenges to juror eligibility or impartiality were rejected as lacking prejudice or due to trial strategy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNA artifact evidence and duty to investigate second perpetrator | Prieto claims counsel failed to pursue the “12” allele indicating a foreign DNA contributor. | Commonwealth argues artifact and testing showed no second donor; evidence insufficient for Strickland prejudice. | Claim I fails under Strickland; evidence shows allele artifact and no reasonable probability of different result. |
| Juror residency outside Virginia and structural error | Juror 46 may have resided outside Virginia, violating Code § 8.01-337 and constituting structural error. | Seating not structural error; ordinary juror-disqualification rules apply. | Claim II(A) rejected; seating not structural error. |
| Effective assistance re Juror 46 residency (II(B)) | Counsel should have challenged Juror 46’s residency. | Counsel reasonably relied on juror list and voir dire assurances; no prejudice shown. | Claim II(B) rejected. |
| Juror 23 concealment and impartiality (III) | Juror 23 concealed abuse history to bias outcomes; affected impartiality. | Questionnaire and voir dire did not show intentional concealment or bias; no due-process violation. | Claim III rejected; no demonstrated impartiality violation. |
| Failure to move to strike Juror 23 for cause and post-trial interview (IV) | Counsel should have moved to strike and later interviewed Juror 23 to reveal misconduct. | Responses indicated ability to follow instructions; post-trial interviews not mandated. | Claim IV rejected; no deficient performance or prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficient performance and prejudice required for habeas relief)
- Prieto v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 366 (2009) (remand for resentencing; later affirmed death sentences)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (juror challenges and voir dire considerations)
- Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Hulvey, 233 Va. 77 (1987) (evidence from jurors generally not admissible to impeach verdict)
- Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (1986) (structural vs. non-structural errors; harmless-error review applicability)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (structural concerns and cross-border juror issues; limits on review)
- Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992) (presumption of regularity in prior convictions and related procedures)