Richardson v. Kornegay
5:16-hc-02115
E.D.N.C.Mar 24, 2017Background
- In 2011 Richardson was convicted by a jury in Pitt County, NC, of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of discharging a weapon into occupied property; sentenced to consecutive life terms plus additional prison time. The NC Court of Appeals affirmed in 2013.
- Richardson filed a state MAR in 2014 raising claims including exclusion of an eyewitness-identification expert, ineffective assistance of counsel, juror misconduct/third-party contacts, newly discovered evidence (alibi from brother), and racial animus in deliberations; MAR denied and certiorari denied. He filed a §2254 habeas petition in 2016.
- Respondent moved for summary judgment; petitioner submitted several affidavits in opposition. Court struck two juror affidavits as not part of the state-court record (Pinholster bar) but allowed counsel affidavits relating to the ineffective-assistance claim (because that claim was procedurally defaulted below).
- The district court applied AEDPA deferential review where state courts adjudicated claims on the merits, and Brecht harmless-error standard where applicable for juror-external-contact issues.
- The court granted summary judgment for respondent: (1) exclusion of the eyewitness-identification expert did not violate due process; (2) the ineffective-assistance claim was procedurally defaulted under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A‑1419(a)(3); (3) juror allegations reflected internal deliberations or innocuous external contacts and did not trigger Remmer/Pena‑Rodriguez relief; (4) newly discovered-alibi evidence was not credible or newly discovered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of eyewitness-identification expert | Trial court wrongly excluded Dr. Van Wallendael, denying Richardson a complete defense | Trial court reasonably excluded testimony as more prejudicial than probative; cross-examination sufficed | Denied relief — state court reasonably applied law; exclusion within trial court discretion (AEDPA deference) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to secure expert fully) | Counsel performed deficiently by not having expert hear all testimony/interview witnesses | Claim was forfeited on direct appeal and MAR properly dismissed under NC §15A‑1419(a)(3) | Procedurally defaulted — federal review barred; alternatively no Strickland prejudice shown |
| Juror misconduct / internal pressure & racial animus | Jurors pressured, discussed race, one juror drove by scene — violated Sixth Amendment impartial jury right | Juror statements concern internal deliberations or innocuous/public media exposure; no extraneous information showing racial animus relied upon | Denied — internal deliberation evidence barred by Rule 606(b); statements didn’t show juror racial animus requiring Pena‑Rodriguez exception; no Remmer presumption or prejudice shown |
| External contacts (crime-scene visit, media exposure) | Unknown juror visited scene; juror saw news and discussed trial — warrants Remmer hearing | Any drive-by was minor and cumulative (photos/video in evidence); media exposure was public, not private, and not about guilt | Denied — no showing of prejudicial extraneous contact; any visit was harmless under Brecht |
| Actual innocence / newly discovered alibi | Brother Andre’s affidavit places Richardson elsewhere — establishes actual innocence | Affidavit is not newly discovered, contradicts trial evidence, and lacks diligence/credibility | Denied — MAR findings reasonable; new evidence not credible or sufficiently exculpatory to meet Schlup/McQuiggin standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (federal habeas review under §2254(d)(1) limited to state‑court record)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA requires deference; petitioner must show no reasonable basis for state decision)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (defendant’s right to present a complete defense balanced against rules excluding evidence for prejudice/confusion)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas relief for non‑constitutional error requires showing of substantial and injurious effect)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Pena‑Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) (no‑impeachment rule yields where juror makes clear statement indicating reliance on racial stereotypes/animus)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (presumption of prejudice where unauthorized third‑party contact with juror concerns pending matter)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987) (no‑impeachment rule bars juror testimony about internal deliberations)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual‑innocence gateway requires showing that no reasonable juror would have convicted in light of new evidence)