Sivo v. Wall
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13302
1st Cir.2011Background
- Sivo was convicted of first-degree child abuse in Rhode Island for injuring J.J. while in Sivo's care.
- J.J. suffered a subdural hematoma requiring emergency surgery and resulting in lasting impairments.
- Evidence at trial consisted of medical testimony that the injury required a severe blow or being thrown, contrasted with defense expert testimony suggesting non-abusive causes.
- Sivo was the sole caregiver during the critical period; his statements to Kim and investigators were consistent with his theory of an accidental fall but contradicted by medical experts.
- Rhode Island courts upheld the conviction and sentence; a federal habeas petition was denied with a certificate on one issue, which the First Circuit reviews de novo with respect to the underlying state court decision.
- The majority affirms the denial of habeas relief, applying Jackson v. Virginia; the concurring judge emphasizes the case is close and the evidence marginal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence suffices under Jackson v. Virginia | Sivo: insufficient circumstantial evidence | State: substantial circumstantial evidence shows knowling/intentional abuse | Yes; evidence sufficient to sustain conviction |
| Whether federal review properly deferred to state court factual and legal determinations | Sivo disputes state-court conclusions on sufficiency | State: deference due under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 | Deferential review applied; no constitutional error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard: rational jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- O'Laughlin v. O'Brien, 568 F.3d 287 (1st Cir. 2009) (circumstantial evidence; near-boundary cases require caution)
- Leftwich v. Maloney, 532 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2008) (habeas review; avoid disabling mere disagreement)
- Stewart v. Coalter, 48 F.3d 610 (1st Cir.) (reasonable-doubt standard; exclude all unreasonable doubts)
- Foxworth v. St. Amand, 570 F.3d 414 (1st Cir. 2009) (distinguishes permissible inferences from speculation)
- United States v. Calderon, 77 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1996) (evaluate witness credibility and evidentiary persuasiveness)
- O'Laughlin v. O'Brien, 568 F.3d 287 (1st Cir. 2009) (circumstantial evidence; proximity alone not enough)
- McCambridge v. Hall, 303 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2002) (unreasonable application standard in habeas review)