Rivera v. Cuomo
664 F.3d 20
2d Cir.2011Background
- Petitioner-appellant John Rivera was convicted by a jury of depraved indifference murder in the death of his estranged wife from a point-blank gunshot wound; he was acquitted of intentional murder.
- Appellate Division affirmed, and leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied.
- Rivera filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 arguing state courts unreasonably applied Jackson v. Virginia to depraved indifference murder.
- District Court denied relief under AEDPA, applying depraved indifference law in effect in 1997.
- Court of Appeals later reversed, finding deference owed under AEDPA]; then, after Cavazos v. Smith, revisited decision and affirmed.
- Judgment ultimately affirms district court’s denial of the habeas petition under AEDPA standards
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AEDPA deference requires upholding state court rulings on depraved indifference murder given evidence of heightened recklessness | Rivera argues state court misapplied federal law, thus unreasonable under AEDPA. | Rivera contends deference should not salvage an unreasonable application of federal law. | No; the court upheld the state court decision under AEDPA standards. |
| Whether evidence was so lacking that no rational juror could convict for depraved indifference murder | Rivera asserts evidence of heightened recklessness was insufficient. | State argues evidence, though slim, supported a rational verdict. | Evidence not so lacking as to render conviction unreasonable. |
| Whether deference should be amplified due to Cavazos v. Smith and double deference under AEDPA | Rivera seeks heightened deference to state court reasoning post-Cavazos. | State argues Cavazos requires deferential standard; still upholds state decision. | Court concludes deference, including Cavazos guidance, supports affirmance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S. Ct. 2 (Supreme Court 2011) (emphasizes double deference in § 2254(d) habeas cases)
- Renico v. Lett, 130 S. Ct. 1855 (Supreme Court 2010) (unreasonable application of federal law differs from incorrect application)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1979) (requires jury to find each element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Sanchez, 98 N.Y.2d 373 (N.Y. 2002) (significantly heightened recklessness standard)
- Rivera v. Cuomo, 2 A.D.3d 884 (2d Dep’t 2003) (affirmed conviction on direct appeal)