Spicola v. Unger
703 F. App'x 51
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael J. Spicola was convicted in New York state court of multiple child sexual offenses involving a relative aged six to eight.
- At trial the prosecution presented expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS); defense counsel moved in limine to exclude that testimony but the motion was denied and the expert testified.
- Post-conviction, Spicola raised a CPL § 440.10 ineffective-assistance claim alleging sixteen deficiencies, including counsel’s failure to consult with or call a rebuttal CSAAS expert; the state courts denied relief.
- Spicola sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court dismissed his petition and this Court granted a certificate of appealability limited to the CSAAS-expert ineffective-assistance issue.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo but applied AEDPA deference to the state court’s Strickland application and affirmed the denial of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult or call a rebuttal CSAAS expert | Spicola: counsel’s failure to consult or call an expert was objectively unreasonable and violated Strickland | Respondents: counsel reasonably educated himself on CSAAS, moved in limine, and cross‑examined the State’s expert; no per se rule requires a rebuttal expert | Held: State court reasonably applied Strickland; no requirement always to retain a CSAAS expert and counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable |
| Whether Gersten required counsel to obtain expert assistance on CSAAS | Spicola: relies on Gersten to argue counsel should have secured an expert | Respondents: Gersten does not mandate an expert; it permits adequate defense by sufficient self-education and effective cross-examination | Held: Gersten does not create a per se rule; here counsel educated himself and challenged the expert, so Gersten does not establish ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Gersten v. Senkowski, 426 F.3d 588 (2d Cir. 2005) (discusses defense options when prosecution offers CSAAS expert testimony)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (federal habeas review requires state-court Strickland application to be objectively unreasonable under AEDPA)
- Eze v. Senkowski, 321 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2003) (discusses highly deferential AEDPA standard of review)
- People v. Spicola, 947 N.E.2d 620 (N.Y. 2011) (New York Court of Appeals decision affirming conviction)