EUNICE FIELD, Petitioner, Appellant, v. ALLISON HALLETT, Superintendent, MCI Framingham, Respondent, Appellee.
No. 20-1571
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
June 14, 2022
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Denise J. Casper, U.S. District Judge]
Before Lynch, Thompson, and Gelpi, Circuit Judges.
Maria Granik, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Maura Healey, Attorney General, was on brief, for appellee.
June 14, 2022
A. Background
“We take the facts largely as recounted by the [SJC] decision affirming [Field‘s] conviction, ‘supplemented with other record facts consistent with the SJC‘s findings.‘” Yeboah-Sefah v. Ficco, 556 F.3d 53, 62 (1st Cir. 2009) (citing Healy v. Spencer, 453 F.3d 21, 22 (1st Cir. 2006)).
The Initial Encounter
Though not the traditional way to tell a story, we‘ll start this tragic recounting in the middle of things, when Field was first encountered by police. On the afternoon of August 9, 2010, police officers at the Brockton Police Department spotted a car parked outside the lobby doors of the precinct, blocking the exit area of the station. A woman who was later identified as Field was in the driver‘s seat, smoking a cigarette and drinking a coffee. Three officers approached her car and spoke with Field, who complained of chest pain. She also stated that she was bipolar. One of the officers asked her if she was well enough to get out of the car so they could move it out of the way of the exit, and when she agreed, the officer noticed blood on her hands and forearms. The officer asked how she got the blood all over her, and she replied, “I just killed someone.”
How It Started
Let‘s back up now and fill in the backstory leading up to the murder, cobbling together the story of what transpired with the benefit of hindsight (i.e., using information provided in the police interviews and trial testimony, as recounted in the state court decision denying Field‘s motion for a new trial, and the SJC‘s review of the same). Eunice Field was a fifty-four-year-
That night, Field posted a message to her Facebook page that read, “Tic toc, tic toc. I‘m going to finish my book tomorrow. You‘re all going to be real interested in it because you‘re all in it. The title is Tormented Minds by Eunice Field.” She also wrote a letter to Williams (found the evening of the murder in Field‘s apartment pursuant to a search warrant), which read in part that Wachsman “will get what she deserves for coming between you and me.” The morning of the crime, Williams testified that there was nothing odd about Field‘s behavior.
We know that after making breakfast for Williams, Field went to Wachsman‘s home in Bridgewater. She stabbed Wachsman nine times -- six times in her neck, two in her chest, and one in her back. She then found herself at the Brockton Police Department.
The Police Interviews
Back to the Brockton Police Department. After approaching Field in her car, the officers proceeded to ask Field if she would come into the lobby of the station. One of the
After the initial inquiries, the Brockton police subsequently conducted a video-recorded interview with Field. The interview lasted approximately one hour and forty minutes. One of the detectives conducting the interview, Detective Clark, read Field her Miranda warnings and a warning of the right to stop questioning. When asked if she understood these warnings, Field replied, “Yeah.” She was then asked if she wished to waive her Miranda rights and she replied, “Yeah.”
During the interview, Field exhibited a slowness in answering the questions, and took unusually long pauses between words and sentences. She also at times appeared not to be listening to the questioning and talking about other things, which were often “irrelevant and nonsensical.”
Later in the day, Field was transferred to the Bridgewater Police Department. There, officers conducted yet another video-recorded interview with Field. Once again, she was given her Miranda warnings and also advised of her right to stop the questioning. Field signed the Miranda form, and requested food and a cigarette. She agreed to questioning while she waited
B. Procedural History
A state court grand jury indicted Field for murder in the first degree on October 21, 2010. Approximately two years later, on October 2, 2012, her trial began in Plymouth Superior Court. During the trial, the Commonwealth introduced the two video-recorded police interviews and called a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Russell Vasile (“Dr. Vasile“), as an expert witness. Dr. Vasile testified that after watching Field‘s interviews, he did not see evidence of manic behavior, depression, delusions, psychosis, or hallucinations. He also testified to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” that Field was criminally responsible for her actions. Dr. Vasile was cross-examined by Field‘s trial counsel. The focus of trial counsel‘s cross was to point out that the basis of Dr. Vasile‘s testimony was not “generally accepted in the psychiatric field” and also to “impeach
In Field‘s defense, trial counsel did not introduce a mental health expert, nor did he contest that Field killed Wachsman. Rather, his strategy was to convince the jury that Field‘s bipolar disorder prevented her from forming the requisite intent to commit first-degree murder. He later testified at the post-trial motion hearing that he believed that the “bizarre behavior” in the two interviews would make the jurors sympathetic to Field, and they would only convict her of second-degree murder. That strategy proved unsuccessful, and Field was convicted of first-degree murder based on deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty on October 11, 2012. She was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Field filed a notice of appeal on October 17, 2012, to the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC“). Equipped with a new attorney, and while her appeal was pending, on June 19, 2014, she filed a motion for a new trial, asserting that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to consult a mental health expert on trial strategy. Later that month, the SJC stayed the appellate proceedings and remanded Field‘s motion for a new trial to the Plymouth Superior Court. Field then filed a supplemental motion for a new trial, asserting that trial counsel was also ineffective for failing to move to suppress the two video-
After the evidentiary hearing, Field filed a second supplemental motion for a new trial on the same grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, this time arguing that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to consult a mental health expert to determine Field‘s competency to stand trial. Ultimately, the trial judge denied all three motions for a new trial, and Field filed a new notice of appeal to the SJC. Unconvinced, the SJC affirmed the trial court‘s rulings. See Field, 79 N.E.3d at 1039.
Its holding regarding the failure to suppress was similar (though it did not hold that not suppressing the video tapes was in error). Instead, the SJC concluded that showing them to the jury was a “tactical decision that was not without justification.” Id. Trial counsel‘s belief was “that allowing the jury to view the video recordings of both police interviews and to observe her strange behavior firsthand would increase the likelihood that the jury would find that [Field] had not premeditated the killing or acted with extreme atrocity or cruelty.” Id. On the record before it, said the SJC, it could not conclude that if the videos had been excluded, it would have affected the jury‘s verdict. Finally, the SJC found that although
Gaining no traction in state court, Field filed a habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In her petition, she claimed ineffective assistance on substantially the same grounds as she did in state court. First, she claimed trial counsel failed to consult a mental health expert in raising a mental health defense and in cross-examining Dr. Vasile (i.e., trial strategy); second, trial counsel failed to move to suppress the video-recorded interviews; and third, he failed to consult a mental health expert to determine Field‘s competency to stand trial. The district court denied Field‘s petition, and we now assess her claims with fresh eyes.
C. Standard of Review
Because Field‘s murder case was adjudicated in state court, AEDPA marshals our review of the claims brought before the state court.
the application for habeas corpus must be denied unless the state court‘s adjudication of the claim satisfies either of two conditions: (1) it “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
Yeboah-Sefah, 556 F.3d at 65 (citing
With respect to the first condition under
and objective judgment of the federal court.” Id. (quoting McCambridge v. Hall, 303 F.3d 24, 36 (1st Cir. 2002)). “Even where a state court has misapplied federal law, we will only grant relief to the petitioner ‘in cases in which all fairminded jurists would agree that a final state court decision is at odds with the Supreme Court‘s existing precedents.‘” Strickland v. Goguen, 3 F.4th 45, 53 (1st Cir. 2021) (quoting Dorsica v. Marchilli, 941 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 2019)). If the petitioner does succeed in demonstrating error, “it is still not enough to win because [s]he must also illustrate ‘actual prejudice’ resulted from the mistake.” Id. at 54.
As it relates to the second factor (
Having laid out this deferential foundation, we‘ll note that we review the federal district court decision de novo, see Scott v. Gelb, 810 F.3d 94, 98-99 (1st Cir. 2016)2, bearing in mind we have limited leeway under AEDPA, and even less when it comes to ineffective assistance claims.
D. Discussion
Field brings claims for ineffective assistance of counsel related to three errors she contends were made by her trial counsel, and she also makes a cumulative error argument. Of course, her ineffective assistance claims must be viewed in light of the habeas framework we just described, and she sums up her argument like this: “The [SJC‘s] decision was contrary to and involved and unreasonable application of clearly established federal law where . . . its finding that [Field] was not denied the effective assistance of counsel was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence.” And more
specifically, “the finding that [Field] was not prejudiced by counsel‘s failures was an unreasonable application of Strickland‘s prejudice prong.”3 We will address each of her arguments in turn as we move forward.
Before we dive into the merits, first a primer on ineffective assistance claims which will help guide our analysis. “The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution afford a defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel in all state criminal prosecutions which may result in the loss of [her] liberty.” Yeboah-Sefah, 556 F.3d at 70. In order to demonstrate that she received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Field must show two things: that her defense counsel‘s performance was (1) constitutionally deficient and (2) that this deficiency prejudiced her case. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. At prong one, Field must demonstrate that “counsel‘s
performance was objectively unreasonable ‘under prevailing professional norms.‘” United States v. Mercedes-De La Cruz, 787 F.3d 61, 67 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). This standard is “highly deferential” and thus we must “indulge a strong presumption that . . . under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.‘” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)). Further, “[w]hen examining counsel‘s conduct, the court considers the facts of the particular case from counsel‘s perspective at the time.” Sleeper, 510 F.3d at 38.
At Strickland‘s prong two, Field must affirmatively prove that the deficient performance was prejudicial. 466 U.S. at 687. To demonstrate prejudice, Field must show “that, but for counsel‘s unprofessional error, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Yeboah-Sefah, 556 F.3d at 70 (quoting Sleeper, 510 F.3d at 38). “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
To bring it all together, the Supreme Court has instructed us that “[w]hen [AEDPA] applies [in concert with Strickland], the question is not whether counsel‘s actions were reasonable. The question is whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland‘s deferential standard.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 105.
Field first argues that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to consult a mental health expert in raising a mental health defense and in cross-examining the Commonwealth‘s expert, Dr. Vasile, at trial. Her ineffective assistance argument goes like this: “It is not within the most tolerant standard of competence to forego having the defendant undertake a mental health defense examination.” Had trial counsel consulted a mental health expert, it would have become obvious that Field‘s statements were not voluntary, and using a forensic psychologist as opposed to Field‘s statements “would not have opened the door to the contents of her statements by police.” This matters, says Field, because her statements were not voluntary given that she was not rational at the time she gave them.
As evidence of trial counsel‘s incompetence in cross-examining Dr. Vasile, she points to the fact that Dr. Land (the post-trial motion expert for Field) “countered the testimony of the Commonwealth‘s armchair expert [Dr. Vasile].” Had trial counsel hired an expert himself to counter the testimony of Dr. Vasile at trial, the “risk of mistakes” made by Dr. Vasile would have been “minimized.” Tying this back to AEDPA, we read her
Whether the SJC applied Strickland unreasonably is not the same as asking whether defense counsel‘s performance fell below Strickland‘s standard. Our obligation is the former -- to determine whether the SJC unreasonably applied the clearly established federal standard for examining Field‘s ineffective assistance of counsel claim as outlined in Strickland. In considering Field‘s argument, the SJC did not take issue with her argument as to the inadequate performance of Field‘s counsel. Instead it concluded that although trial counsel erred in failing to consult a mental health expert, Field ultimately had not “established that [trial counsel‘s] failure was likely to have influenced the jury‘s verdict of murder with deliberate
While it is certainly concerning, given the lengthy history of Field‘s mental health struggles, that an attorney would not, at a minimum, consult a mental health expert to assist in trial strategy, we cannot say that the SJC‘s determination under Strickland was unreasonable. Field fails to present specific arguments as to why consulting a mental health expert would have influenced the jury in deciding deliberate premeditation. Crucially, Dr. Land (the post-conviction mental health expert) never testified that Field lacked the capacity to deliberately premeditate. The record is replete with evidence -- from Field arranging the meeting with Wachsman, to drafting her Facebook post, the letter to Williams essentially confessing or at least previewing her planned revenge on Wachsman for “getting in the way,” and her issues with Wachsman over her friend Ruthie -- all of which reasonably support the conclusion that she deliberately premeditated the crime. Concluding that the SJC‘s application of Strickland‘s prejudice prong was not unreasonable, we also note
Ineffective Assistance in Failing to Move to Suppress Video-Recorded Police Interviews
Next, Field claims that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress the two video-recorded interviews. Field focuses the weight of her ineffective assistance argument on rehashing the mistakes trial counsel made in the first instance, rather than focusing on whether the SJC unreasonably applied Strickland (which, as we previewed above, is what we must focus on here). For instance, she argues that the waiver of her Miranda rights was not made “knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily” due to the fact that she suffers from mental illness, as Dr. Land testified. Her statements made to the police were not voluntary for the same reason. Adding to that, she points out that trial counsel was ineffective in not moving to suppress the interviews (and the statements contained therein) for another reason: Field had invoked her right to silence by saying she did not want to be asked more questions in the Bridgewater police interview, but they continued to ask her questions. Her statements moving forward from there should have been inadmissible, she says.
Tying all of this to AEDPA, she argues that the SJC‘s determination that failing to suppress the statements did not lead to prejudice was an unreasonable application of the Strickland prejudice prong.5 As she sees it, “[w]ithout these recordings . . . the jury would not have had a sufficient basis to find either premeditation or extreme atrocity or cruelty.” Field, 79 N.E.3d at 1043. Trial counsel testified at the post-trial motion hearing
that he “believed that allowing the jury to view the video recordings of both police interviews and to observe her strange behavior firsthand would increase the likelihood that the jury would find that the defendant had not premeditated the killing or acted with extreme atrocity or cruelty.” Id. Because of this, the SJC concluded that trial counsel‘s choice not to move to suppress was a “tactical decision not without justification.” Id. The SJC decided that it did not “need to resolve whether counsel‘s judgment was manifestly unreasonable because even if we were to assume that it was . . . [it could not] conclude on this record that the admission of the video-recorded interviews was likely to have affected the jury‘s verdict of murder by deliberate premeditation.” Id. The SJC noted (as we have, above) the record contains plenty of “evidence of deliberate premeditation from other sources (such as her confessional note, her social media post, and her arranging the meeting with the victim) . . . [evidence] so overwhelming that we cannot say admission of the video recording was likely to have influenced the jury‘s decision to convict her on the theory of premeditation.” Id. at 1044. While the SJC did not explicitly determine whether trial counsel erred in not moving to suppress the video-recorded interviews, under Strickland,6 this court is cautioned that “strategic choices
made [by trial counsel] after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. The SJC determined, as we‘ve noted, that trial counsel made a “tactical decision,” and we cannot say that the SJC unreasonably applied the Strickland ineffective assistance of counsel standard as it relates to prejudice, particularly where there was overwhelming evidence of premeditation that was in evidence absent the video-recorded interviews. Because of that, as the SJC found, there was not a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial. What‘s more, remember that “we must use a doubly deferential standard of review that gives both the state court and the defense attorney the benefit of the doubt.” Pena v. Dickhaut, 736 F.3d 600, 606 (1st Cir. 2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore agree with the district court‘s determination that Field is not entitled to habeas relief on this claim.
[A] court need not determine whether counsel‘s performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel‘s performance. If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.
Field argues that by failing to consult a mental health expert in order to ascertain her competency to stand trial, trial counsel‘s assistance was ineffective. In support of this argument, she points to evidence from the new trial proceedings, such as trial counsel‘s statement that he did not think she understood “what was going on” or that “she caught on what was going on.” This, combined with her bipolar disorder and the symptoms attendant to her mental health condition, made it unreasonable for trial counsel not to consult with a mental health expert.
Under AEDPA, the SJC‘s findings, according to Field, “were based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.” The “factual finding” that Field points to is the SJC‘s determination “that counsel merely ‘was not sure that the defendant understood the mental health impairment defense,‘” which constituted “an unreasonable determination of the facts.” Field also points out that the SJC (and the trial court) both ignored the testimony of trial counsel himself, who noted that Field could not effectively communicate with him, which was “all the evidence the court needed” to determine that she received ineffective assistance.
The SJC disagreed. It concluded that there was no evidence presented (beyond trial counsel‘s statement that he was
As we‘ve said before, we accept the SJC‘s factual determinations to be true, and in order to succeed on her AEDPA claim, it is Field‘s burden to “rebut[] the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.”
Cumulative Error
Finally, Field contends that the totality of trial counsel‘s errors resulted in prejudice. “Absent any particularized error, there can be no cumulative error.” Williams v. Drake, 146 F.3d 44, 49 (1st Cir. 1998). Because we find no prejudice on any of the three purported errors above, Field is not entitled to relief on her cumulative error claim.
E. Conclusion
For the reasons detailed above, we affirm the district court‘s denial of Field‘s habeas petition.
THOMPSON
CIRCUIT JUDGE