Terrance Tucker v. Superintendent Graterford SCI
677 F. App'x 768
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Terrance Tucker was convicted in Pennsylvania state court of third-degree murder and related charges for a 2002 killing tied to gang retaliation; sentence 30–60 years.
- During trial the judge, after an off-the-record chambers discussion, closed the courtroom to the public for the duration of witness testimony citing repeated gallery disruptions and prior incidents of witness tampering/intimidation (including threats to witness Tonaysha Austin).
- Tucker’s trial counsel objected but preserved the issue; counsel on direct appeal (the same attorney) did not raise a Sixth Amendment public-trial closure claim on appeal.
- On collateral review under Pennsylvania’s PCRA, the Superior Court applied a state-law standard (Commonwealth v. Berrigan) and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim; Pennsylvania higher courts denied review.
- Tucker filed a federal habeas petition; the District Court granted relief, finding appellate counsel ineffective for not raising a Waller-based public-trial claim and ordering release or a new trial. The Commonwealth appealed to the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit held the Superior Court unreasonably applied federal law by using Berrigan instead of the Waller test, but on de novo Strickland review found Tucker failed to show a reasonable probability that raising the Waller claim on direct appeal would have changed the outcome; it reversed the District Court and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge courtroom closure on direct appeal | Tucker: appellate counsel was deficient for not appealing a Waller violation; closure violated Sixth Amendment public-trial right | Commonwealth: closure was justified; Superior Court reasonably applied state standard; no Strickland prejudice | Court: Superior Court unreasonably applied federal law (used Berrigan not Waller), but on de novo review Tucker failed to show Strickland prejudice (no reasonable probability appeal outcome would differ) |
| Whether the Superior Court’s analysis complied with clearly established federal law | Tucker: Superior Court should have applied Waller’s four-prong test | Commonwealth: state court application was reasonable and entitled to AEDPA deference | Court: Superior Court applied a less rigorous Berrigan standard, contrary to Waller; AEDPA deference not warranted |
| Whether the trial court’s closure satisfied Waller’s four prongs (overriding interest; narrow tailoring; consideration of alternatives; adequate findings) | Tucker: closure insufficiently justified and possibly overbroad | Commonwealth/trial court: closure necessary to prevent disruption and witness intimidation; alternatives were considered or infeasible | Court: on de novo review, the closure met Waller’s prongs given gang context, disruptions, witness threats, and on-the-record findings; not likely to be reversed on appeal |
| Whether failure to consider alternatives sua sponte fatally undermines the closure | Tucker: failure to articulate alternatives on record renders closure invalid under Presley | Commonwealth: trial judge implicitly considered and rejected alternatives; circumstances made alternatives impractical | Court: although the judge could have been more explicit, implicit consideration (admonitions, exclusion of specific persons, off‑the‑record colloquy) was sufficient; Presley satisfied on review |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (establishes four‑part test for courtroom closures under the Sixth Amendment)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (trial courts must consider alternatives to closure even if parties do not propose them)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference principles for state court decisions under AEDPA)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (when §2254(d)(1) is satisfied, federal courts must resolve the claim de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 501 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1985) (Pennsylvania standard permitting reasonable restrictions on courtroom access; court found inconsistent with Waller)