Rosenthal v. O'Brien
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112234
D. Mass.2011Background
- Rosenthal petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting four grounds for relief stemming from trial and post-trial proceedings in Massachusetts.
- He was convicted of first-degree murder by a Middlesex Superior Court jury in 1996, based on extreme atrocity or cruelty, with a defense of lack of criminal responsibility.
- Prior to trial, Rosenthal underwent multiple pre-trial mental health evaluations and was involuntarily committed at Bridgewater for psychiatric assessment, with ongoing questions about competency.
- Defense and court records show Rosenthal’s counsel discussed competency; a court-ordered competency evaluation was sought and multiple psychiatrists weighed in, but no definitive competency finding was entered before trial.
- A motion for a new trial was denied (Mem. & Order, July 24, 2009), leave to appeal denied by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and Rosenthal filed the federal petition on January 27, 2010.
- The district court applied AEDPA standards and ultimately denied relief on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion judge erred in failing to hold a competency inquiry. | Rosenthal asserts substantial doubt about competency due to bizarre behavior and medical opinions. | The judge properly weighed Bridgewater reports, voir dire by counselors, and trial judge observations to find no substantial doubt. | No error; no substantial doubt requiring a competency inquiry. |
| Whether Rosenthal validly waived the right to testify and whether a hearing was required. | Counsel coerced or prevented testimony; waiver was not knowing or voluntary. | waiver was consistent with trial strategy; no coercion shown; no on-record requirement for a colloquy. | Waiver was valid; no due-process violation; no necessity for a colloquy. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking a competency evaluation. | Failure to pursue competency evaluation prejudiced defense. | Counsel's strategic decisions, based on available evidence, were reasonable; | Not reasonable to overturn; no Strickland prejudice shown. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress pre-Miranda statements. | Pre-Miranda statements were involuntary due to coercion and mental illness. | Pre-Miranda statements were admissible; suppression not warranted; counsel acted tactically. | Not ineffective; tactical choice reasonable; no prejudice. |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising certain issues on appeal. | Appeal counsel failed to raise competency and trial-counsel-IAC issues. | Issues were either non-meritorious or adequately addressed underlying concerns; exhaustion satisfied. | Appellate counsel not ineffective; exhaustion satisfied; no prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (due process and competency to stand trial standard)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (duty to inquire when substantial doubt about competency arises)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (defining competency to stand trial)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 Mass. 50 (1978) (Massachusetts standard for duty to hold competency hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (1974) (Massachusetts analog to Strickland for counsel performance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Mullins, 315 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2002) (applying Strickland to appellate counsel analyses)
- United States v. Systems Architects, Inc., 757 F.2d 373 (1st Cir. 1985) (trial strategy as a factor in waiver context)
- Commonwealth v. Goldman, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 699 (1981) (trial judge observations relevant to competency)