TATAR v. PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS JEFFREY BEARD
2:10-cv-01410
W.D. Pa.Jun 21, 2012Background
- Tatar, a Pennsylvania inmate, seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from state murder-related convictions.
- Direct appeal affirmed; PCRA denied after a hearing; Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied discretionary review.
- Petition raises multiple ineffective-assistance grounds and state-law compliance issues.
- Claims include trial counsel failures, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, alibi evidence, and post-trial discovery issues.
- AEDPA standard governs review: the state court judgments must be reviewed for unreasonable applications of federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizable claim under Pa. Rule 801. | Tatar argues Rule 801 violated his federal rights. | State courts correctly found no constitutional violation. | Denied; state-rule violation not federal constitutional error. |
| Effectiveness of trial counsel re jury instruction. | Counsel failed to object to erroneous instruction lowering burden. | Instruction minor, no prejudice. | Denied; no Strickland prejudice. |
| Admission of prior bad acts and pre-arrest silence evidence. | Counsel failed to object to prejudicial evidence. | Evidence admissible; door opened by defendant; not prejudicial. | Denied; no Strickland prejudice. |
| Failure to raise alibi defense on appeal. | Alibi evidence warranted preservation for appeal. | Evidence did not constitute a legal alibi. | Denied; not a cognizable alibi defense. |
| Exhaustion and procedural default of claims 7–10; DNA/evidence claim 11. | Claims properly exhausted; failure on state procedure waives review. | Defaults bar federal review; some claims procedurally defaulted. | Denied; claims 7–10 procedurally defaulted; 11 not meritworthy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (U.S. 1983) (sets limits of federal habeas deference to state proceedings)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2002) (AEDPA deference; standard for 'unreasonable application')
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (U.S. 2011) (clarifies 'unreasonable application' standard under §2254(d)(1))
- Renico v. Lett, 130 S. Ct. 1855 (U.S. 2010) (illustrates AEDPA deference to state court decisions)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (defines 'unreasonable application' of clearly established law)