Wright v. Marshall
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18213
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Wright was convicted in 1985 of murdering Penny Anderson; he admitted being with her but claimed he left before the killing.
- New evidence emerged in federal habeas proceedings showing Allen Smalls made self-incriminating statements; district court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing.
- Wright argues ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to press Daye-based objections (third and fourth prongs) to Turner's grand jury testimony and for not requesting a misidentification instruction.
- Turner testified via a grand jury proceeding based on an interview and a police statement; Turner's later partial recantation raised questions about admissibility under Daye.
- The Commonwealth presented corroborating evidence (entry with Anderson, blood in Wright's car, comparable shoe print, phone records, and similar victim description) to support the admissibility of Turner's testimony.
- The district court denied the petition on the merits; the First Circuit reviewed de novo, affirming denial of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Turner's grand jury testimony under Daye | Wright argues Daye's third/fourth prongs were not satisfied, so testimony should have been inadmissible. | Commonwealth satisfied Daye factors; Turner's testimony was admissible and corroborated. | Admissible under Daye; counsel not deficient for failing to frame the argument as requested. |
| Failure to request a misidentification instruction | Counsel's failure to seek a misidentification instruction prejudiced Wright. | Instruction would not have been required; Turner identified Wright, and other evidence supported conviction. | No prejudice shown under Strickland; instruction not required to change outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Daye, 393 Mass. 55 (1984) (four-prong test for admissibility of prior inconsistent grand jury statements)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficient performance plus prejudice required for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Tevlin v. Spencer, 621 F.3d 59 (2010) (defendant bears burden on showing deficient performance and prejudice)
- Shuman v. Spencer, 636 F.3d 24 (2011) (de novo review of habeas claims in First Circuit with AEDPA standards)
- Commonwealth v. Clements, 436 Mass. 190 (2002) (reformulated requirements for admission of prior inconsistent statements after Daye)