*1 whеther to assess find it difficult We any arguable lack ba- allegations
George’s discern- we have trouble in fact because
sis at all from the allegations factual
ing any Denton, 504 U.S. See
complaint. (“[A] friv- finding of factual
112 S.Ct. when the facts appropriate
olousness is irrational or rise to the level
alleged ”). Nevertheless, wholly incredible.... dismiss- that the District Court’s agree
we as lacked entirely appropriate,
al complaint. over the
jurisdiction we cites 28 U.S.C. complaint claim. for a federal no basis
perceive arises out of a complaint clearly
George’s to a violation
family dispute, opposed as Furthermore, to the ex- rights.
his civil law, state raises claims under George
tent diversity jurisdiction no basis for
there is reside in Delaware. parties both
because § 1332.
See 28 U.S.C. present George’s appeal does
Since summarily af- question, we will
substantial of his
firm the District Court’s dismissal
complaint. JOHNSON, Appellant
Lorenzo MECHLING, Superintendent;
Neal Wiseman, Esq. (Argued), Michael
Pennsylvania. Donnella, Swarthmore, PA, Amy Esq., G. Philadelphia, Phil- Association of Defender No. 08-2477. PA, for adelphia, Appellant. Appeals, States Court United (Argued), Of- Stoycos, Esq. R. William Third Circuit. Pennsylvania, Attorney General of fice of 30, 2009. Argued Sept. PA, Appellee. for Harrisburg, Filed Oct. 2011. McKEE, Judge, BEFORE: Chief NYGAARD, CHAGARES, and Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT feet eight wide and extended to ten feet back to a body just fence. The inside NYGAARD, Judge. Circuit alley. the Corey Walker Taraja murdered Lucas, The next Leroy witness was a trial, joint Williams. At a Petitioner Lor- Harrisburg member of the police depart- enzo Johnson was convicted as Walker’s ment’s forensics unit. When Officer Lucas accomplice co-conspirator and in mur- scene, arrived at the crime many saw der. Johnson appeals the District Court’s footprints leading from the victim into the petition denial of his for a writ of habeas alley corpus filed toward the six-foot fence and on the pursuant to 28 2254. U.S.C. question The sole other through alley. certified to us on side of the fence appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to Officer Lucas also recovered from the prove guilty degree first mur- partial scene a shotgun with the barrel der conspiracy to commit murder. missing. The officer testified that body lay of the victim approximately ten
I. fence, feet from relatively close to the Because issue before us is the sidewalk at the entrance alley. sufficiency of the we must re- Miller, Gary the son of the owner of the count the evidence that was developed at bar, Midnight Special testified that he was trial in some detail. stateWe the facts in working at the bar night of December most favorable to the Common- 14-15, 2005, seeing and recalled Williams wealth, and will draw all reasonable infer- Corey Walker in the bar. He did not ences from those facts in the Common- seeing recall Lorenzo Johnson. Miller tes- Dent, wealth’s favor. See United States v. tified that working he was when he heard (3d Cir.1998). 149 F.3d With this the doorman yelling “you got all to take mind, standard of review in we turn to the that out of here” and then went to the door District Court’s summary recitation and where he saw Walker and Williams leav- the trial evidence. ing. The first testify witness to was Laura Brown, victim, Carla a friend of the Davis, patrol officer with the Harrisburg testified next. Brown testified that she Bureau of Police. Officer Davis testified was in the bar on the night of December that she was on patrol in the early morn- 14-15, 2005, Walker, Johnson, and saw ing 15, 1995, hours of December when she engaged in an argument. Brown heard a booming loud nearby. sound Offi- could not hear what was said or who was cer Davis began to search for the source of speaking, but the argument involved “a lot the sound and encountered individuals who of arm movements.” Before long, the told her that someone had been in shot an bouncer them told to leave. Brown fol- alley between two houses on Market Walker, Johnson, lowed and Williams as Street. Officer Davis then encountered a they left the bar “because she wanted to people crowd of in front of the Midnight going know what was on.” Brown recalled bar, Special located on 14th and Market that Walker was wearing long leather Streets, and an individual there indicated coat and if walked as he had something he heard a shot in the 1400 block of Mar- hidden under it. The three men ket Street. walked After Officer Davis searched further, single-file front, line with an individual waved her over to an middle, alley Williams in between 1420 Market and Johnson Street where she back. Brown body slowly discovered followed behind Taraja Williams. The alley was about four up. her hood Walker and Johnson did not her, cocaine addict who her, that Williams was a who knew but notice walking drugs support The three men continued sometimes sold his habit. did. they reached single file until He stated that he knew who Walker and *3 first, en- entered Williams where Walker he seen them Johnson were and that had next, remained at tered and Johnson Ramsey of the time. testi- together most alley, approached As she entrance. incident, night of the he fied that on going. keep told Brown to drugs on Market Street near selling was alley feet Brown walked a few Midnight Special bar. Williams was and ran. heard a loud boom when she making Market Street runs for also out on night. Ramsey that she had been ad- first tes- drug Brown admitted dealers high Williams, was on drugs that, and that she dicted to he last saw he tified when killing. Accord- at the time of the cocaine alley into an with two individu- moving was Brown, drugs of in her ing to the amount cross-examination, Ramsey On cor- als. murder, on a night system on himself, stating that he saw three rected ten, a She also of one to was seven. scale one female and individuals the incident she ran to a stated that after testimony two males. This was consistent high. Brown testi- got friend’s house and police on the gave with the statement he fied, however, had been clean for that she Ramsey testified night of the incident. currently employed. nine months and was that one of the individuals with Williams that, preliminary at the Brown admitted Ramsey limp, walked with a so assumed she was she had testified that hearing, guy” whom he knew to be “crippled time of the incident but not drunk at the Ramsey stated he assumed drug dealer. Brown testified that she did drugs. on drug to make a Williams was because she was scared police contact deal. that, be killed. Brown admitted she would Ramsey A minute after saw Williams by police, first cоntacted she when she was individuals enter the and the other nothing them she knew about told Ramsey he a loud boom. After heard that al- incident. Brown also testified sound, around the heard the he walked (an- Doubs though she knew who Victoria returned, he noticed block. When witness) being was after shown other trial among the crowd Walker and her, she was not friends photograph Midnight Special in front of the people never talked to Doubs with Doubs and had that Walker and Ramsey bar. testified incident. about the stunned, “like sort of Johnson seemed Dews, an witness was Aaron The next happened, Taraja has maced like what at Visions Youth Works in-house advisor you Ramsey ... serious?” been killed are buildings in one of the which was located serving a sentence in admitted that he was alley. Dews testified that bordering the Prison, he was under County Dauphin heard a loud he and another staff member night of the of cocaine on the the influence incident. After night on the boom incident, although he was still a and that furnace, to see if it was the checking first addict, recovery. drug he was two out the window and saw Dews looked driveway away running up the silhouettes Kevin was Detective The next witness stated that he from the house. Dews Police, Harrisburg Bureau Duffin of in detail the two individuals could not see murder. investigated the Williams who over the -window. plastic because there was that, testified about Detective Duffin 15, 1995, later, on December victim, twelve hours Ramsey, a friend of Brian ap- car when he in an unmarked Ramsey testified he was the next witness. police in a brown Doubs testified that she first told proached three individuals sped away high night at a rate late on the of December Ford. Ford 1995, she, Johnson, guy “a speed. placed Suquan Ripply, Detective Duffin a flash- Cliff, girl his car followed named and a named ReeRee” ing light on the roof of way the Ford struck another were on their to New York. The next the Ford. When car, occupants police, foot. Two time Doubs met with she the three fled on apprehended. of the individuals were One told them that she had lied and did not peti- actually being of them was Lorenzo recall New York on the night police tioner. of the murder. Doubs told *4 up that she had made her initial statement witness, Doubs, The next Victoriа testi- going paid because “she was to be to tell she, Walker, fied that and Johnson were story.... [M]y supposed bail was to “close friends” who “ran the streets to- paid.” explained be Doubs one 14, 1995, Doubs, On December gether.” Walker and Johnson’s friends named Lar- Walker, up together and Johnson woke ry going pay story was to her to tell the to at 18th and Streets. house Carnation police. Doubs stated that she went to They buy marijuana to some went out and New York with group this same “two to Kentucky then went to a Fried Chicken week,” say three times a but could not restaurant near 14th and Market Streets. she was in New York with Johnson on approached, When Williams Walker went 15,1995. 14 or December over to talk him and to the two of them Finally, walked back toward Johnson and Doubs. Doubs testified that sometime death, Doubs testified that Walker and Williams after Williams’ ran she into Carla talking money Taraja got “were about the Brown and that the two of them high that, together. they had owed us.” Walker contin- Doubs testified while [Williams] money. smoking together, ued to confront Williams about the were crack Brown stat- smart,” getting began given couple Williams “started ed that Walker had her a Walker, “cussing out” “him crack to told he’d rocks take Williams into the give it to him when he felt like he night ain’t on the of the murder. On cross- examination, scared of him.” Walker hit Williams and Doubs admitted that she had they fight. forgery started to Williams won the a conviction for in connection with fight, beating Walker with a broomstick. stolen checks. Doubs also admitted that in Dauphin County she was Prison on a Walker, Many people saw Williams beat robbery conviction. which made angry. Walker After Walker, Johnson, fight, Sergeant and Doubs left. Frederick Wentling of the laughed Doubs and others at Walker and State Police testified about jokes. partial made Walker stated “I’m going shotgun recovered from the going kill that crackhead. I’m to kill that Suquan Ripply crime scene. also testified. Ripply kid.” Doubs testified that Walker “was one of the individuals who fled He pres- hot. was heated.” Johnson was from Detective Duffin on December he, ent when made Ripply Walker these statements. 1995. first testified that John- Walker, Johnson, son, Hairston, Doubs, and Doubs returned to David Vicki man Clifton, the house at 18th and Streets named woman Cаrnation named Ree- fight Harrisburg where others were told about the and Ree left for New York around also fun of p.m. made Walker. This made 4:00 on December 1995 and did angry repeated and he that he was not return until 4:00 a.m. on December kill “going Ripply that kid.” 1995. admitted that he had initial- was found to commit murder. Johnson story, but later told this same police ly told the mur- accomplice as Walker’s on guilty false and that he story was that this police conspiracy charge guilty on Johnson on the der in New York with was not stand, Johnson and Walker were charge as well. Ripply On the the murder. night of mandatory imprison- actu- both sentenced to life that his first statement testified ment on the murder conviction and concur- that he told Detective correct and ally years imprison- after the to ten he wanted to hear” rent terms of five Duffin “what charged conspiracy him he would ment on the conviction. told detective On re-cross lying. if he was perjury post-trial In a motion examination, admitted that Ripply Pleas, challenged the Common York with Johnson trip to New made evidence as insufficient Commonwealth’s times, was “off with the thаt he many conspiracy. him of homicide and to convict statement to he made his first when dates” John- Pleas Court denied Common sure whether exactly” “not police, and was motion, holding: son’s in New York on with Johnson he was out- have re-viewed the evidence as We *5 14 December 15. December that the evi- lined above and conclude examiner, Ross, Wayne a medical Dr. to the ver- dence was sufficient sustain that the cause of next and related testified presented dicts. The Commonwealth shotgun wound death was Williams’ who fol- testimony the of Carla Brown Chambers, Eric the bouncer the chest. victim lowed the two defendants and the night the Midnight Special bar on ulti- where the victim was incident, get and others saw Williams Corey mately shot. She stated that out, see Johnson there kicked but did not and it walking limp was Walker night. concealing if looked to her as he was Jackson, witness, his coat. Victoria Lashawyn something under The next testimony provides a motive for and testified that Doubs’ girlfriend was Walker’s attack. She stated that Midnight Spe- her in the the defendants’ was with Walker 14-15,1995. incident, the day night all on December earliеr on cial bar cross-examination, Jackson an alterca- Corey victim and Walker had On that she and embarrassed the uncertain of the date tion and that the victim was also in the bar. Jackson of his were in front Walker defendant [Walker] po- contacted the that she never associates. She stated admitted friends and information after Walk- re- provide repeatedly lice to [Walker] the defendant witness, going final Ger- to kill the arrest. The Clifton marked that he was er’s maine, and Johnson was a friend of Walker both defense counsel victim. testimony he could not that on a date this witness’ who testified tried to discredit Johnson, character, a woman whose convictions prior remember on her based incarceration, solely went with he could not remember name and current not know jury Germaine did to deter- province him to New York. within testimony Victoria Doubs was credi- Suquan Ripply or mine whether her who presented alibi were. defendants ble. Both they were testified that witnesses who II. shooting at the vicinity of the not in the Ripply testi- Suquan time of incident. three-day jury trial Following joint him Johnson was with fied that Lorenzo County Court of Common Dauphin incident time of the in New York at the Pleas, guilty of murder was found Walker Lashaw- Corey girlfriend, Walker’s conspiracy criminal degree in the first Jackson, nyn Corey conspiracy testified that murder and criminal ... I [sic] evidence, Midnight Special was with her at the believe that there is no direct inferred, evening Bar the entire any linking incident. nor can defen- Again, jury it was for the to determine Taraja dant Johnson to the death of the purported any agreement whether alibi defenses Williams nor with defen- were meritorious. dant which Walker resulted Williams’ death. jointly Johnson and appealed. court, Id. Like the trial the Superior argued that the evidence adduced analyze Court did not mention or the ele-
at trial insufficient as a matter of law first-degree ments of the offense of mur- guilty to sustain a verdict and that der —the foregoing is the extent of its suf- against weight verdict was of evidence. ficiency the analysis. adopting After the Common Pleas Court’s recapitulation of the the Superior petition Johnson next filed a for allow- Court affirmed both convictions and appeal sen- ance of with the Su- tences, holding: Court, preme again arguing that the evi- dence was support insufficient his
We conclude that sufficient evidence was
convictions and that
the verdict was
presented to support
jury’s
Verdict.
against the
weight
the evidence. The
The various witnesses’ statements re-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the
Johnson,
vealed that
Corey
Lorenzo
petition
opinion.
without
arguing
Walker and
victim were
in-
A.2d
Midnight Special
side the
bar and were
*6
(Pa.1999).
out,
told to leave. The trio walked
with
the victim between Lorenzo Johnson
petitioned
Johnson
for
relief under
Corey
and
They proceeded
Walker.
Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act
into an
shot was heard.
(PCRA), raising
grounds
several
for relief.
Two men
fleeing
were observed
the Following an evidentiary hearing,
scene,
body
and the victim’s
was discov- Court of Common Pleas denied each of
alley.
ered
Presented
this
Johnson’s claims and Johnson appealed to
jury
had a sound basis
Court,
Superior
reasserting the same
upon which to conclude that a conspiracy
grounds for relief.
Superior
The
Court
existed between Lorenzo Johnson and
affirmed the denial of Johnson’s PCRA
Corey
Taraja
murder
petition.1
petition
Johnson filed a
for al-
Williams.
lowance of appeal
with the
Supreme
which
Court
was denied without
Commonwealth v.
Judge finding the evidence exhausting After his available remedies against Johnson insufficient: court, petition state Johnson filed for a
I dissent portion Major- from that corpus writ of habeas in the United States ity’s decision which upholds the convic- District In petition, Court. his Johnson (1) tion of degree Lorenzo Johnson for first alleged that: presented at appeal petition 1. While an testimony. his first PCRA trial He avers that while he told Court, pending police he saw both Walker and Johnson at the court, crime, petition filed a second really only in the trial rais- scene of the saw Walker. ing a claim of Ramsey "just after-discovered evidence. An indicated that he assumed that Walker, affidavit had been obtained from Brian Ram- since I saw Mr. that Mr. Johnson was crowd, sey, one of the Commonwealth's trial wit- somewhere in the midst of the but I affidavit, Ramsey nesses. In actually recants his never saw Mr. Johnson.”
537
of,
guilty
application
clearly
established Feder-
support
insufficient to
trial was
law,
verdicts,
by
Supreme
al
as determined
thereby violating
rights
his
to due
States;
Court of the United
Virginia,
v.
443
under Jackson
process
2781,
(2)
560
99
61 L.Ed.2d
U.S.
S.Ct.
resulted in a decision that was based
(2)
(1979);
failed
that the Commonwealth
on an unreasonable determination of the
plea agree
of a
to disclose the existence
presented
facts in
of the evidence
Doubs,
witness, Victoria
ment with its trial
proceeding.
the State court
to due
thereby violating
rights
process
his
2254(d).
§
28
applica-
U.S.C.
State court
373
83
Brady Maryland,
under
v.
U.S.
contrary
tion of federal law is
to clearly
(3)
(1963);
1194,
III.
governing legal principle
tifies the correct
Supreme]
from
Court’s decisions but
[the
A.
unreasonably
applies
principle
jurisdiction is based on 28
Our
U.S.C.
the prisoner’s
facts of
case.”
§§ 1291 and 2253. The District Court had
1495;
see also
529 U.S.
S.Ct.
§§
to 28
jurisdiction pursuant
U.S.C.
Blackwell,
Lambert v.
387 F.3d
2254. Because the District Court
*7
(3d Cir.2004). The state court’s decision
corpus petition
ruled on Johnson’s habeas
objectively
also have been
unreason-
must
evidentiary hearing,
conducting
without
an
Smith,
510, 520,
Wiggins
able.
v.
539 U.S.
decision
our review of the District Court’s
2527,
(2003);
156
471
123 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
Hendricks, 307
plenary.
Marshall v.
409,
at
agree
District Court
the evidence
most favorable to
incorporated
proper
state court
federal
prosecution, any
rational
trier of fact
standard;
therefore,
contrary
it was not
could have found the essential elements of
clearly
question
law. The
established
re-
a reasonable doubt.” Id.
the crime
Superior
mains whether the
Court’s deter-
319,
at
(emphasis
original).
wealth v.
452 Pa.
308 We find the
lacking
record
sufficient
592,
(1973)
A.2d
594
quoting Turner v.
support
necessary
evidence to
conclu-
States,
398, 405,
United
396 U.S.
90 S.Ct.
sion that Johnson shared Walker’s intent
642,
evaluated and all evidence actually Miller, re- A.2d Gary the ceived must be son, considered.” Id. bar owner’s did not recall Johnson shoved, bar, or otherwise forced the but did recall the bar’s ordered at the being and the victim ordering prevented Walker victim into the him doorman Chambers, the premises. it, the to leave leaving from it would be reasonable to doorman, ejecting recalls specific infer Johnson’s intent. Brown bar, he did but testified from her testify, testimony does not so nor does The Commonwealth not see Johnson. reasonably any such inference. permit Walker and maintains that testimony from this Any inference drawn at a argument in a heated engaged victim specific as to Johnson’s intent to kill is an night of the murder. local tavern on unreasonable one. the lone difficulty, is that Further, the Commonwealth relied on to this event—Carla Brown—testi- witness Ramsey’s opinion Brian that Williams was ” argument an only fied that she “saw alley as evidence of John- “forced” into ” the contents of the discus- did not “hear Ramsey’s intent. Reliance on testi- son’s testify not that Johnsоn sion. Brown does mony to establish intent is unreasonable. indeed, argument, and spoke during this that he Ramsey Brian testified did see actively testify that Johnson was does not alley the victim enter and did not argument. She demon- involved in the any physical describe action his testimo- witnessed, but gestures various she strated to a reasonable infer- ny that would lead gestures. who made these identify did not anyone ence that “forced” the victim into affirmatively identify Brown does not Ramsey alley. testified argu- participating Johnson as even Indeed, go them the street testimony tells us I didn’t see down ment. Brown’s saw, during actions I I nothing Taraja of Johnson’s when [Williams]. content argument. knowing looked, alley Without Taraja walking was into the Johnson was argument, and whether first, people and there were two other it, testimony Brown’s adds involved in him, stayed behind and one there was— intent; any nothing question on the But, said, by the sidewalk. like I I Johnson’s inference drawn therefrom as to you And af- really only glanced, know. specu- intent to kill Williams would looked, all figured right, ter I I was lation. just I turned back around. so
Likewise, walked evidence that Johnson Ramsey also doеs not identi- App. at 283. alley the victim to an with Walker and alley: the victim into the fy who “forced” kill of his intent to not evidence Q: people walking these down Were Brown, who also followed Williams. line, they in a were like 14th Street three men out of the bar and down other, they one after the or were street, in a “sin- they testified that walked side, they were when side or how gle file line.” She testified that Johnson alley? you saw them at the alley],” but at anoth- “never went in [to people, they I these were A: When saw point testimony er in her related Street. on Market Later, in “they alley.” him in that walked sorry, I’m Market Street. Q: related summary testimony, of her she really say I say. A: I wouldn’t would him [into] that “all I know is who walked looked, they just you know. were —I alley and who stood in front already Taraja person One — relied on alley.” The Commonwealth alley. already had walked into the victim was testimony Brown’s walking in person The second “walked” into the as evidence behind him. intent. If Brown had Taraja went in first? actively pushed, Q: So testified that Johnson *11 Although speculate A: one could Yes. that Johnson stopped prevent at the entrance Q: Okay. escaping, picture Williams from such a my say A: So to would that he was —I night’s the events cannot be reasonably alley. in forced engag- inferred from the evidence without Q: you But all saw is that he walked in ing type of speculation prohibited by there on own? his the Due Process clause. A: Yes.
App. Ramsey Superior lastly at 246. contradicts The identified the himself. First he comments that the victim was fact that two men fleeing were seen the forced into the and then testifies that scene of the crime as evidence of Johnson’s only he saw the victim walk the alley. into Here, intent. the Superior Court most not mentioned as evidence the relying testimony on the of Aar- Court, the accept- District Court on Dews. in working building While Ramsey’s opinion ed that Williams was bordering alley where the murder took Here, alley “forced” into the as fact. place, originally Dews heard a noise he problem Ramsey’s opinion unsup- is that is thought checking was a furnace. After ported by testimony. Ramsey his own furnace, Dews looked out a window and provided up no facts to back opinion, his saw two people running up driveway. identify nor did he who “forced” the "victim anything He could not see more. This is more, alley. into the Without it is unrea- not evidence of Johnson’s intent to rely sonable to on this evidence to estab- commit identify murder. Dews cannot lish an inference that Johnson intended to people who ran driveway, down the he did kill Williams.4 anyone not going witness into the drive- The argues that John- way, identify he could not Johnson as one son’s intent to kill reasonably can be in- of the driveway indeed, individuals — ferred from the fact that he purposefully he admitted that his view was obstructed alley. blocked the entrance to the by plastic sheeting on the window. It is District Court found this evidence to be an reasonable, therefore, to infer from important inference to be drawn as to testimony Dews’ that Johnson was one of is, difficulty intent. The these running driveway. individuals however, that there is no record evidence Moreover, that Johnson was in a car indicating that Johnson blocked the en- police fled from the is not evidence of alley. trance to this There is no evidence his intent Pennsylva to commit murder. victim, attempted to flee nia flight courts have held that from the alley prevented and Johnson him from scene may of the crime evidence a con doing so. All the evidence shows is that guilt, “along proof, sciousness of with other stopped walking Johnson at the entrance from which alley people guilt may when the be inferred.” was follow- Com ing Bruce, and Williams—entered it. monwealth v. 717 A.2d 1037- —Walker opined 4. The alley purposefully District Court that "Johnson ward the and the stood ignored completely testimony Brown’s that he blocking F.Supp.2d the entrance." alley Ramsey's walked Williams into the problem, 674. The is the Dis- testimony that Williams was forced into the testimony. trict Court misreads Brown’s She Further, alley. multiple alter- testify did not that Johnson walked Williams day, including cations with Williams that alley into the or blocked his exit therefrom. argument heated in the bar moments Ramsey testified that the victim walked into before, certainly rational inference that "on his own.” intentionally walked Williams to-
543 Walker, Johnson. In- only to not to owed see also Common (Pa.Super.Ct.1998); 38 Moore, deed, A.2d at the prosecutor argued Pa. 937 trial 594 wealth v. (2007). However, only “this 1067 debt was owed to Walker. that in the other in cases which true holds debt to Any inference drawn from this than of guilt consists more of evidence intent is unrea- specific establish Johnson’s Common at the scene.” presence mere by it is foreclosed the trial sonable because 20, 24 A.2d 745 Hargrave, v. wealth finding of fact that the debt specific court’s Su The (Pa.Super.Ct.2000). pre- him. We accord a was not to owed “mere has instructed that preme Court to the state court’s sumption of correctness immediately the scene both on presence findings factual and Commonwealth subsequent to the commission and prior to nothing to overcome presented has this is not flight therefrom of crime Horn, v. 581 F.3d presumption. See Lewis prove to involvement evidence sufficient (3d Cir.2009); 28 U.S.C. Goodman, crime.” Commonwealth 2254(e)(1). § A.2d 811-12 is flight, of which element “The that, additional implied The taken District does guilt, with fear as as consistent present of evidence separately, pieces guilt.” proof into presence convert not by the were insufficient ed Id. at 811. at F.Supp.2d convict 674- to Johnson. However, agree. Duffin we must view Kevin 75. We
Harrisburg police detective that, in an un- patrol on of evidence as if it is connected piece while each testified car, another totality he encountered police marked determine if the to the whole and African-American containing three vehicle viewed in a most it until Duffin followed this vehicle males. Commonwealth, estab favorable to the testi- stopped. car and Duffin hit another beyond intent a reasonable lishes criminal occupants fled the vehicle’s fied that and are con We have done so doubt. appre- them were that two of later produced here that the evidence vinced John- petitioner of them hended —one juror not allow a reasonable simply would Duffin, however, was not the scene son. a reasonable doubt conclude to time, nor was this during crime to kill Williams. that Johnson intended of the crime fleeing the scene Johnson is in this case com The web of evidence apprehended approximately when he was lead, of evidence that posed of strands Any inference twelvе hours later. not, conclusion that more than Duffin is flight from intent possessed the Johnson neither an intent to kill is unreasonable his killing. Williams, nor assisted kill one. support sufficient to Nor is the evidence discussed, or specifically not conclusion that Johnson act- necessary by even mentioned indeed he intended to way ed in such to testi- Court, points the Commonwealth solicit, aid or facilitate Walker encourage, argues concerning a debt that mony Stat. See 18 Pa. Con. killing Williams. as evidence to Johnson Williams owed (ii). 306(c)(1)® The evidence Ann. turn, reasonably motive, which would any reasonable permit simply does to infer Johnson’s a fact finder permit on guilty find factfinder and abet Williams’ intent to aid degree first abetting charges aiding for the Common- problem murder. by Penn- crime is defined murder as that trial wealth, state sylvania statute. debt was found specifically court E. reasonable doubt. That standard requires *13 question the inference in must be To convict a defendant of conspiracy likely “more than not to flow” from the Pennsylvania, the trier of fact must find already facts Leary established. United “(1) things three from the evidence: States, 6, 36, 1532, 395 89 U.S. S.Ct. 23 defendant intended to commit or in the aid (1969). 57 L.Ed.2d The “more than (2) act; commission of the criminal not well standard” is established. It can- agreement defendant entered into an with here because the satisfied record crime; ... engage another to (3) simply does not allow a juror reasonable the defendant or one or more of the infer co-conspirators other committed an overt Johnson intended to kill act agreed upon furtherance of the by Williams. The District Court erred Montalvo, crime.” Commonwealth v. 598 concluding that the Superior Court’s deci- 263, 926, (2008), Pa. 956 A.2d 932 cert. sion was a application reasonable of Su- — denied, U.S. -, 1989, 129 S.Ct. 173 preme precedent facts this (2009). L.Ed.2d 1091 First-degree murder case. The specu- Court relied on kill, requires specific intent to and that lation and unreasonable when it inferences mens rea is also required accomplices reviewed the circumstantial prof- co-conspirators. See 18 Pa. Con. Stat. fered against John- 2502(a); Horn, §Ann. Smith v. 120 F.3d error, Doing son. so was not but was (3d Cir.1997), 410 citing Common unreasonable because it allowed Johnson Huffman, wealth v. 638 A.2d to be convicted on something less than proof “every element of the offense” of already
Inasmuch as we have
deter-
beyond
conviction
a reasonable doubt.
mined that
the Commonwealth failed to Jackson,
U.S.
tional
to find
kill
intent to
on
V.
the first-degree murder charge, it neces-
Superior Court’s deci-
sarily
they
follows that
failed to do so on sion affirming Johnson’s conviction was an
conspiracy
charge as well.
application
unreasonable
of the Constitu-
requirement
tional
the Common-
IV.
present
wealth
prove
evidence sufficient to
The Superior Court’s decision on the
every element
beyond
of a crime
a reason-
merits of
sufficiency
Johnson’s
challenge
2254(d)(1);
able doubt. 28 U.S.C.
re
In
was an
application
erroneous
of Jackson.
358, 365-68,
Winship, 397 U.S.
90 S.Ct.
determine, however,
We must still
whether
(1970); Jackson,
District Court’s Defiant, told that he Williams Walker corpus for a writ of habeas petition son’s money get would when Williams felt rejection courts’ of his because the state like and that he was not scared Walk- claim was not sufficiency of the evidence ensued, fight er. A beat to, contrary application or an unreasonable with a broomstick. As a result— *14 of, Virginia, U.S. Jackson presence and in Johnson?s was —Walker 61 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. laughed by peеrs. at and embarrassed his response, furiously In and re- must, in its Viewing the as we pres- in Johnson’s peatedly again favorable to totality and in the most stated — ence—that he intended to kill Williams.2 Commonwealth, I believe the state that a ration- reasonably court determined Upon returning together to the area la- had a juror al could infer that Johnson evening, ter that Brown saw murdering intent to aid Walker specific Walker, arguing and Williams the Mid- Weaving together Taraja Williams. night Special being bar.3 After thrown out Miller, Brown, Gary testimony of Carla bar, proceeded men in a the three Jr., Doubs, Ramsey, Brian Detec- Victoria street, single-file line down the with Walk- Dews, Duffin, Kevin and Aaron front, middle, tive er in Williams in the to the fol- paint was able wearing Johnson rear. Walker lowing morning of Decem- picture. On noticeably a leather overcoat long, Walker, 14, 1995, Johnson and who ber walking object (presumably like he had an always together, up woke in the same shotgun) were in his overcoat. When hidden to the Ken- house and went with Doubs they arrived at an between the build- (“KFC”) Street, tucky ings Fried Chicken near the at 1420 and 1422 Market John- intersеction of 14th and Market Streets son stood outside the entrance while Walk- er, Pennsylvania. alley. Per Doubs’s followed entered the Harrisburg, testimony from both Brown and and There was testimony, approached, prior knowledge 1.Emphasizing ambiguity from his combined with his of Doubs's "us,” that Williams owed a debt to statement actions at the time of the murder. argues that Johnson an inference Walker, Doubs, to Williams owed debt perplexing testimony, it is 2. Given this (as opposed only Walker and Johnson to "[ejntirely missing argue that Johnson can Doubs) impermissible the trial because any proof is evi- from the Commonwealth’s finding debt was owed court made a that the planned knew that Walker [he] dence that Because, says, just only it was to Walker. happening.” kill Williams in advance of it likely Doubs's reference to "us” was to as Quite contrary, Johnson Br. 30-31. Walker, only herself and an inference that the logical the most inference from Walker’s imper- well is debt was owed to Johnson as (in presence) that he statement ultimately missible. The Commonwealth is knew planned to kill Williams is that Johnson argument, that the correct in its very well that Walker hаd such intentions. much matter: whether debate does not money to all three or Williams owed majority posits that because Brown 3. The point and Walker is beside the because Doubs being during the could not hear what was said testimony concerning provided the debt argument, may drawn there- no inferences knowledge with of Walker’s motive to Certainly may per- disagree. one from. I Together with other evidence kill Williams. argument engaged in an ceive individuals opinion, I believe that it was discussed in this knowing the actual content without to find that reasonable for the state court argument. be inferred Johnson’s intent to aid Walker can Ramsey willingly that Williams did not to kill Williams. The only issue—whether alley. Upon entering alley, phrased enter the in terms of intent to com- first-degree Walker shot and killed Williams a mit murder or specific intent shotgun. to aid in first-degree the commission of murder —is Johnson’s state of mind at the The aftermath of the crime is also con- time of the Piecing together homicide. guilty sistent with Johnson’s mind. Aaron parts constituent of the Commonwealth’s Dews testified that he two saw silhouettes evidence, I believe that the stаte court was driveway running up the from the di- finding not unreasonable in rational alley. Although rection of the he could not jury could properly infer Johnson’s gender, make out the silhouettes’ from intent to aid Walker in the murder. other evidence it more flows than not that the running silhouettes were in- majority is correct that although deed Johnson and Walker. Brown testi- each strand of evidence need not support *15 passed alley upon itself, fied that she the and an guilt by inference of we must hearing gun up the shot ran Market Street consider each strand of evidence as if wo- cut through alley get and another to ven or entwined “to the whole and deter- Regina gener- totality evidence, Street. this is the mine if the of the viewed al direction that the two silhouettes were in a light most favorable to the Common- wealth, running, Brown ran through a different establishes criminal intent alley. Since Williams had been killed and a Majority reasonable doubt.” Op. 543. I believe, however, Brown had run through a different majority the has logical inference existed that Johnson and improperly isolated certain strands of cir- Walker wеre the “silhouettes” that cumstantial Dews evidence to reach its conclu- fleeing up driveway saw the between the sion. buildings at 1420 and 1422 Market Street. instance, For majority holds that the Johnson also fled from Detective Duffin mere fact that “Johnson walked with very next Finally, afternoon. there alley” Walker and the victim to an has no testimony was from Doubs that Johnson’s evidentiary Majority value. Op. 541. attempted friend giving to bribe her into However, Walker, testimony was that false alibi information to Duffin on John- Williams, proceeded and Johnson in a sin- son’s behalf. All post-offense of this con- gle-file street, line down the with Walker supports duct further the reasonableness in (noticeably front walking object with an of the state court’s ultimate determination. overcoat), concealed in his Williams in the See Harvey, Commonwealth v. 514 Pa. middle, This, and Johnson in the back. 531, (1987) (“It 526 A.2d is a well- course, occurred within hours of Johnson settled rule of law that if a person has witnessing Walker, beating Williams re- reason to know he in is wanted connection in sulting embarrassment and humiliation crime,
with a proceeds to flee or con- Walker, reрeatedly Walker stating ceal himself from the law enforcement au- that he intended to kill Williams. The thorities, such evasive conduct is evidence single-file brings line to mind an “execu- basis, guilt may form a in connec- tion-style” killing, any and undercuts infer- proof, tion with other from guilt which ence that the three might pro- have been inferred.”); may be Commonwealth v. ceeding down alley drug to do a deal Tinsley, 465 Pa. 350 A.2d 792 or for some other late-night jaunt. More- (1976) (same). over, the manner in they proceeded which demonstrates, argued has never that Walker down the street more not, specific premeditated lacked a intent than that Johnson knew what was (1977) toski, 371 A.2d escorting in aiding and was Walker coming (“[Ejvidence concerning previous rela execu- place to the the victim him and a homicide tions between a defendant and tion, the fact given especially enter- victim is relevant and admissible for immediately upon shooting occurred will, motive, ill mal purpose proving nature or Finally, the coercive alley. ing in prior ice. Evidence of occurrences line is corroborated single-filе threatened, assaulted, which the accused testimony that Williams Ramsey’s Brian may quarreled with the decedent alley. par- in Johnson’s “forced” (footnote purpose.” for escorting helps demon- admissible ticipation omitted)). I I submit that it was reasonable him and Walker. concert between strate itself, to conclude that Walker’s stance outside procession believe the nature help- alley demonstrated both his with other conjunction in at in- intent to have Williams killed and his demonstrating ful in tempt doing to aid Walker so. tent. addition, majority discounts as In that Johnson’s any totality, inference considered in its the evi-
speculation
When
alley
to the
the entrance
the inference that Johnson
presence
supports
dence
demonstrat
assisting
escorting
killed Williams
where Walker
isolation,
single-file pro-
intent. Taken
to be killed: a
ed Johnson’s
*16
cession,
of a
presence
immediately
by
mere
at the scene
followed
Johnson
accomplice
just
be a basis for
outside the
taking
position
crime cannot
Murphy,
by
v.
the murder with a
liability.
immediately
See Commonwealth
followed
(2004).
Johnson
shotgun, immediately
844 A.2d
followed
evidence, it
fleeing
with other
from the scene. To-
conjunction
But in
and Walker
the state
certainly
concerning
reasonable for
the evidence
gether
with
out
and in
presence
to find that Johnson’s
interactions outside the KFC
court
trio’s
bar,
with the
I
alley
together
Midnight Special
believe
side
—taken
of Walk
Johnson acted
prior knowledge
his
inference —that
evidence of
ultimate
Williams,
a first-
kill
the evidence
intent to facilitate
er’s intent
with a
and rea-
argu
logically
in an
murder —flows
just participated
degree
that he had
Accordingly, I
from the evidence.
single-file
sonably
with
and the
ment
rejection
the state courts’
viewed would hold that
alley
be
procession
—could
sufficiency of the
out
of Johnson’s
juror
standing guard
as
by a rational
to,
contrary
an unreason-
not
or
claim was
alley
while Walker consummated
side
of, Jackson.5
application
v.
able
See
Ula
the murder.4
sure,
lookout,
("But
they
him in
thing
walked
one
for
a need for a
or
Whether there was
4.
alley....
who walked him
one was
All I know is
Johnson’s effectiveness as
whether
point.
slight,
аlley
See
and who stood in front
is not the
in that
(“There must be
was scared
Murphy,
alley.”).
dissent, judgment and would affirm the
the District Court. "upon plice liability conspiracy.” was a lack of evidence which a rational as for Common
jury
possessed
Stein,
spe-
could have found that he
Pa.Super.
wealth
585 A.2d
kill,
required
cific intent to
as
for the homi-
result,
1050 n. 6
As a
the above
conspiracy
cide or criminal
convictions.” See
applies equally
discussion
to Johnson’s mur
Perhaps
Johnson Br. 4.
this was because
conspiracy
der and
convictions.
required
proven by
"the intent’ element
the Commonwealth is the same for accom-
Court’s
notes
challenges
sufficiency
that Johnson
of the
applies
evidence and
the correct standard of
argues
3. The Commonwealth
that Johnson
addressing
challenge
review: "in
a
to the
sufficiency
waived the
issue of
of the evi-
evidence,
sufficiency of the
court
must
dence to establish his intent to kill
light
specifically raising
view the evidence admitted at trial in the
it in the District Court.
Commonwealth,
most favorable to the
preserved
argued
as ver-
Johnson has
this issue. He
winner,
dict
and draw all reasonable infer-
to the District Court that in order to establish
kill,
ences therefrom.”