Tavarez v. Larkin, 814 F.3d 644

Tavarez killed his girlfriend in 2005 and was charged with second-degree murder and second-degree weapon possession.
He was tried in New York Supreme Court; the jury convicted him of first-degree manslaughter and weapon possession while acquitting murder.
The verdict was clarified when the jury re-answered the weapon count after being reminded to complete the verdict form; ultimately, the jury found the weapon count guilty.
In 2007 Tavarez was sentenced to concurrent 15-year terms on manslaughter and weapon convictions, plus a $250 surcharge.
On direct appeal Tavarez argued a due process/double jeopardy issue based on the jury’s adjustment of the verdict; the Appellate Division rejected the claim and did not rule on ineffective assistance.
Tavarez pursued state post-conviction relief asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to the verdict procedure; the state court found the claim procedurally barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state court rejection of IAC claim was unreasonable under Strickland	Tavarez (IAC) argues prejudice existed via collateral consequences	Brown argues no prejudice given concurrent sentences and absence of controlling precedent	No; state court reasonably concluded no Strickland prejudice
Whether IAC can serve as cause to excuse procedural default	Tavarez argues IAC can excuse default and reach merits	Brown argues AEDPA deferential review applies to merits and default	Court need not decide standard here, but claims fail on merits even if cause is allowed
Whether recall of jurors and potential coercion/double jeopardy violated due process	Tavarez argued the judge’s actions conveyed message that verdict was wrong	Brown contends no coercion or double jeopardy; no due process violation	State court’s determination was reasonable; no due process violation or double jeopardy

Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (U.S. 1985) (collateral consequences may inform prejudice but not controlling AEDPA standard)
Jackson v. Leonardo, 162 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1998) (collateral consequences can establish Strickland prejudice in some contexts)
Lynch v. Dolce, 789 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2015) (AEDPA review framework for state-court decisions)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (reasonable-application standard for unreasoned state decisions)
Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446 (U.S. 2001) (ineffective assistance can serve as cause to excuse procedural default)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (cause-and-prejudice standard for defaulted claims)
Jimenez v. Walker, 458 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption about state appellate rejection of IAC on merits)
United States v. Rastelli, 870 F.2d 822 (2d Cir. 1989) (judge may order redeliberation when verdict appears uncertain)
United States v. Morris, 612 F.2d 483 (10th Cir. 1979) (judge’s authority to resolve ambiguity in jury verdict)
United States v. Gaton, 98 F. App’x 61 (2d Cir. 2004) (AEDPA review of ambiguous verdict contexts)
United States v. Davis, 689 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2012) (concurrent sentences do not moot challenges to one sentence)