Waiters v. Lee
857 F.3d 466
2d Cir.2017Background
- In May 2006 General Waiters shot repeatedly in his girlfriend’s apartment, injuring two and killing two (including a toddler); he was convicted of second-degree murder, attempted murder, and first-degree assault.
- Hospital records (not fully admitted at trial) showed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.39 (~16 drinks) about an hour after the shooting; the trial court admitted only two redacted notes that he was "intoxicated."
- Trial counsel argued voluntary intoxication to negate specific intent but did not call a medical expert to explain the BAC or introduce the full medical records; the jury convicted and the court sentenced Waiters to long consecutive terms.
- Postconviction, Waiters sought relief under New York CPL § 440.10 and then federal habeas, claiming ineffective assistance for failure to call a medical expert to interpret the BAC evidence and explain its effect on intent.
- At a state 440.10 hearing, defense expert Dr. Stripp testified about effects of a 0.39 BAC but also that tolerances vary and he could not say whether Waiters lacked the ability to form intent; the state court denied relief and the district court later granted habeas, prompting this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not calling a medical expert to interpret BAC records | Waiters: an expert would have explained that 0.39 BAC causes severe cognitive impairment, likely negating specific intent | State: jury already heard intoxication evidence; expert testimony would not have shown inability to form intent and might have opened door to harmful statements | Court: assumed deficiency but ruled state court reasonably found no Strickland prejudice; vacated district court grant and remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether absence of medical expert testimony created a reasonable probability of different outcome under Strickland prejudice standard | Waiters: omission likely changed jury’s view on intent given the BAC’s potency | State: strong testimonial evidence of purposeful acts and post-event admission showing intent; expert could not tie BAC to Waiters’s specific incapacity | Held: no objective unreasonableness in state court’s prejudice ruling given evidence of purposeful conduct and Dr. Stripp’s inability to opine on Waiters’s specific impairment |
| Proper deference under AEDPA to state-court Strickland rulings in federal habeas | Waiters: district court erred in not deferring sufficiently | State: AEDPA requires substantial deference; fairminded jurists could disagree | Held: AEDPA deference applies; state court decision not unreasonably wrong under § 2254(d) |
| Whether other alleged failures by counsel (manslaughter charge request; impeachment of witness) warrant relief | Waiters: additional ineffective-assistance grounds | State: district court did not address these; they were unreviewed below | Held: Court remanded so district court may consider those claims in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA: state-court determinations preclude federal habeas unless unreasonable; "fairminded jurists could disagree")
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (Strickland prejudice must be "substantial, not just conceivable" in § 2254 cases)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (standard for deference to state-court decisions)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (both prongs of Strickland required to set aside conviction)
- Lindstadt v. Keane, 239 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (relief for ineffective assistance generally not warranted where conviction supported by overwhelming evidence)