Rolan v. Coleman, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9906

Florencio Rolan was convicted of first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime for the 1983 shooting death of Paulino Santiago, and he was sentenced to death in 1984.
Rolan challenged trial counsel's effectiveness in a prior federal habeas proceeding, which led to a writ and a retrial in 2007 after key witnesses had died.
During the 2007 retrial, Vargas (an alibi/defense witness) testified inconsistently with the Commonwealth's theory, and his absence at the 1984 trial became a focal point.
The jury in the 2007 retrial convicted Rolan of first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime, with life imprisonment sentence.
On federal petition, the District Court denied relief; this court granted a certificate on five prosecutorial, Fifth Amendment, and Confrontation Clause theories.
The court applies AEDPA deference to state court merits determinations and analyzes whether prosecutorial comments, post-arrest silence, or prior testimony admissibility violated the Constitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Vargas statements as prosecutorial misconduct	Rolan argues Vargas's absence was improperly highlighted.	State argues Rule 1925(b) default but merits support exists.	Procedural default overridden; no due process violation.
Self-defense theory timing and prosecutor comments	Prosecutor implied lack of self-defense assertion reflected fabrication, not counsel ineffectiveness.	Comments were permissible credibility attack in trial context.	No due process violation; proper context and curative instructions.
Misstatements of evidence in closing	Prosecutor distorted Vargas and other evidence to mislead jury.	Statements were fair interpretations of the record and supported by testimony.	No due process violation; statements within permissible closing arguments.
Fifth Amendment post-arrest silence	Prosecutor implied silence as guilt, violating Doyle.	Comments concerned substantive statements, not silence per se.	No Fifth Amendment violation; statements addressed content of remarks, not compelled silence.
Confrontation Clause and admissibility of Santiago's prior testimony	Use of unavailable witness's prior testimony violates Crawford when cross-examination is inadequate.	Prior cross-examination was adequate despite earlier ineffectiveness ruling.	Crawford not violated; cross-examination deemed adequate.

Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (U.S. 1987) (prosecutorial misconduct due process framework; context matters)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (prohibition on use of post-arrest silence for impeachment)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; admissibility of testimonial statements)
Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1989) (adequate and independent state grounds; alternative merits review)
Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1989) (exhaustion of state remedies; procedural default and merits review)