Robert Consalvo v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24573
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Petitioner was convicted in Florida state court of armed burglary and first-degree murder, and a death sentence was imposed.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed convictions and sentence, and post-conviction relief was denied.
- Petitioner filed federal habeas corpus petition; district court denied relief but granted a certificate on two issues.
- Petitioner alleged Brady and Giglio violations—withheld exculpatory evidence and false testimony by witnesses DaCosta and Palmer.
- Petitioner alleged Gardner error—sentencing based on deposition testimony not presented in open court, argued as harmful and reversible.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews under AEDPA, requiring that state court rulings be not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady/Giglio claims viability under AEDPA | Consalvo argues state withheld exculpatory evidence and presented false testimony. | Florida court credited state witnesses and found no exculpatory or misleading testimony. | No AEDPA violation; Florida Supreme Court’s findings not unreasonable. |
| Gardner sentencing error and harmlessness | Deposition evidence cited at sentencing violated due process and must be deemed harmful. | Error deemed harmless; deposition evidence was not the basis for the verdict and was corroborated by other trial evidence. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no AEDPA violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence; impeachment material)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (due process violation for known false testimony used against defendant)
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (due process when sentence partly based on undisclosed information)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error standard applies to trial errors)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless-error doctrine applicable in habeas review)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (bounds of 'unreasonable application' review under AEDPA)
- Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422 (1983) (state-court credibility findings are generally not reweighed on federal habeas review)