Shawn Jacobs v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCI
20-3260
3rd Cir.Mar 15, 2023Background
- In Dec. 2008 Jamal Terry was shot and killed outside the Golden Dragon; Andrew Willis witnessed the robbery and shooting and later positively identified Shawn Jacobs and co-defendant Stanley Howard as the assailants.
- Officer Saxon had earlier observed a white Chevrolet Lumina linked to Jacobs near the Golden Dragon; days after the murder Jacobs fled from police at that vehicle, Howard was arrested, and a handgun was recovered near the passenger door. Jacobs’s DNA and Howard’s DNA were on the gun; ballistics matched the fatal bullet to that gun.
- Howard told police he and Jacobs committed the robbery and that Jacobs shot Terry; Howard did not testify at trial and his post-arrest statements were admitted with names redacted to avoid Bruton problems.
- During closing the prosecutor twice referred to Jacobs by name when discussing Howard’s statements; defense counsel objected only to the second reference and did not request a Kloiber jury cautionary instruction about eyewitness ID.
- Jacobs was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole; state appeals and PCRA relief were denied. On federal habeas review the court granted COA on several claims (ineffective assistance for failure to object to redacted statements and prosecutor reference, Confrontation Clause Bruton claim, failure to request Kloiber instruction, and cumulative prejudice) and affirmed the denial of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jacobs) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Ineffective assistance for failing to object to admission of Howard's redacted statements and the prosecutor's first use of Jacobs' name | Counsel unreasonably failed to object, causing prejudice because Howard's statements implicated Jacobs and reinforced Willis' ID | Any error was harmless because other strong evidence (eyewitness ID, DNA, flight, gun recovery, tattoos) implicated Jacobs | No prejudice; even assuming error, evidence was largely cumulative and no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| 2) Confrontation/Bruton violation from prosecutor's second mention of Jacobs' name in closing | Prosecutor’s statement violated Bruton and Confrontation Clause because it revealed co-defendant’s statement implicating Jacobs | Even if Bruton error occurred, it was harmless in light of independent eyewitness and forensic evidence | No actual prejudice under Brecht; Bruton error (if any) was harmless |
| 3) Ineffective assistance for failing to request a Kloiber identification cautionary instruction | Counsel should have sought a Kloiber instruction because Willis gave inconsistent or qualified pretrial identifications | Kloiber instruction was not warranted: Willis had opportunity to view, made positive identifications pretrial and at trial, and was unequivocal at trial | No ineffective assistance; Kloiber instruction unnecessary |
| 4) Cumulative prejudice from the combined errors | Even if each error alone was minor, together they undermined the trial’s fairness | The alleged errors had the same effect (revealing Howard implicated Jacobs) and did not cumulatively produce a substantial injurious effect given the strong independent evidence | No cumulative prejudice; habeas relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (statement by non-testifying codefendant that incriminates defendant poses Confrontation Clause/Bruton issue)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance standard requiring prejudice showing)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas harmless-error standard: petitioner must show actual prejudice/substantial and injurious effect)
- Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 106 A.2d 820 (Pa. 1954) (trial court should caution jury where witness unable to clearly observe or identification is equivocal)
- Bond v. Beard, 539 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2008) (Bruton error can be harmless where eyewitness testimony and other evidence independently and strongly implicate defendant)
- Preston v. Superintendent Graterford SCI, 902 F.3d 365 (3d Cir. 2018) (Strickland prejudice prong aligns with harmless-error analysis in habeas review)