Waterman v. Lee, 1:10-cv-02276

Waterman filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his murder and weapons convictions.
Waterman was convicted after two trials; his murder sentence was 22.5 years to life, with concurrent weapon sentences.
Key trial evidence included Sellers’ identification of Waterman and Bartlett’s statements tying Waterman to the murder.
A Rodriguez hearing addressed the sufficiency of identifying Waterman from a single photograph, with findings favoring the identification.
A 911 recording of Brown’s statements about a murder suspect was admitted at Waterman’s second trial.
Appellate Division rejected Waterman’s state-law objections; New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion under AEDPA	Waterman exhausted state remedies.	Waterman failed to properly exhaust federal claims.	Claims dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Procedural default of hearsay and other claims	Hearsay and other objections were preserved and should be reviewed on the merits.	Claims were not preserved or were waived in state court.	Claims procedurally defaulted; barred from federal review.
Ineffective assistance of counsel claims	Trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance.	No proper exhaustion; claims not properly raised in state courts.	Dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Use of uncharged-crime evidence and inconsistent testimony	Evidence and testimony were improperly admitted or relied upon.	Evidence admissible; objections waived or not preserved.	Procedurally defaulted; barred from review.

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default and exhaustion principles in habeas review)
Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (clear error review standard for magistrate findings)
Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2005) (federal review barred for lack of substantial showing of a federal right)
United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1997) (principles governing appellate review of procedural default)