Shuman v. Spencer
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3491
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- In August 1997, Shuman killed two business associates; the defense argued a drug‑induced psychosis caused by a toxic combination of diabetes medications and Zoloft.
- A Massachusetts jury convicted Shuman of two counts of first‑degree murder and sentenced him to life without parole.
- Shuman pursued post‑conviction relief and then federal habeas corpus review, challenging trial counsel for ineffective assistance related to Zoloft‑induced effects.
- Dr. Bursztajn testified that Zoloft with other meds could cause agitation and delusional but organized behavior, consistent with Shuman's theory.
- The prosecution’s expert, Dr. Annunziata, found no evidence of a marked mood disorder or major depression at trial.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction and denial of post‑conviction relief; the district court denied habeas relief, which the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not investigating/presenting Zoloft akathisia? | Shuman argues counsel failed to pursue Zoloft‑akathisia link. | Spencer contends counsel reasonably presented an insanity defense and linked meds to conduct. | No; SJC reasonable, and no deficient performance found. |
| Did the district court correctly apply AEDPA and Strickland standards? | Shuman argues district court misapplied standards for habeas relief. | Spencer argues proper AEDPA deferential review and Strickland standard applied. | AEDPA review applied correctly; standards deemed satisfied. |
| Were the state court's Strickland determinations reasonable under AEDPA? | Shuman contends SJC unreasonably applied Strickland. | Spencer asserts no unreasonable application of Strickland. | SJC's application was reasonable; no basis to overturn. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynch v. Ficco, 438 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2006) (de novo review of habeas denial; district court’s reasoning not binding)
- Healy v. Spencer, 453 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2006) (AEDPA deference to state court findings)
- Yeboah-Sefah v. Ficco, 556 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2009) (mixed question of law and fact; review under unreasonable application)
- Renico v. Lett, 130 S. Ct. 1855 (Supreme Court 2010) (clear standard for reasonable application of law; not mere error)
- Delaney v. Bartee, 522 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2008) (preserves requirement of substantial and injurious effect)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (Supreme Court 1993) (harmless error standard for habeas review)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (Supreme Court 2011) (AEDPA deference to state court factual and legal determinations)
- Pike v. Guarino, 492 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2007) (fact findings presumed correct unless clear and convincing evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance plus prejudice required for ineffectiveness)