garuti v. roden, 1st cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Garuti v. Roden, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2481

J OSEPH M. GARUTI ,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

GARY RODEN,

Respondent , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. F. Denni s Sayl or I V, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Dyk, * and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

St ephen Paul Mai dman f or pet i t i oner - appel l ant .J enni f er L. Sul l i van, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Cr i mi nal

Bur eau, wi t h whom Mart ha Coakl ey, At t orney Gener al , was on br i ef ,f or r espondent - appel l ee.

Oct ober 23, 2013

*Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/22

DYK, Circuit Judge. I n t hi s habeas appeal , pet i t i oner

J oseph M. Gar ut i ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n di smi ssi ng

hi s pet i t i on wi t hout an evi dent i ar y hear i ng. Gar ut i ar gues t hat ,

i nt er al i a, he was ent i t l ed t o a hear i ng on hi s Si xth Amendment

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai ms under St r i ckl and v.

Washi ngt on, 466 U. S. 668 ( 1984) . Because Garut i cannot demonst r at e

t hat he has r ai sed a subst ant i al i ssue t hat woul d r equi r e

addi t i onal f act ual devel opment , we af f i r m.

I

On March 14, 2006, Garut i was convi ct ed i n Massachuset t s

Super i or Cour t of f i r st degr ee mur der by r eason of ext r eme at r oci t y

or cr uel t y. Gar ut i was char ged wi t h st r i ki ng and ki l l i ng hi s ex-

wi f e by r unni ng her over wi t h an aut omobi l e whi l e pi cki ng up hi s

t wo young chi l dr en f r om her home. Af t er st r i ki ng hi s ex- wi f e wi t h

t he aut omobi l e, Gar ut i , a r egi st er ed nur se, r ef used t o r ender any

assi st ance. Gar ut i s def ense was t hat t he deat h was an acci dent .

On t he advi ce of t r i al counsel , Gar ut i di d not t est i f y on hi s own

behal f at t r i al .

Af t er Gar ut i s convi ct i on, Gar ut i , now r epr esent ed by new

counsel , r ai sed t he cl ai ms now asser t ed i n hi s habeas pet i t i on, i n

a mot i on f or a new t r i al i n t he Massachuset t s t r i al cour t . I n t hi s

mot i on, Gar ut i ar gued t hat he was deni ed hi s r i ght t o ef f ect i ve

- 2-


3/22

assi st ance of counsel under t he Si xt h Amendment , 1 and that he was

pr ej udi ced by hi s at t or ney s def i ci ent r epr esent at i on. Gar ut i al so

ar gued that , because of counsel s al l egedl y def i ci ent per f or mance,

he di d not knowi ngl y and i nt el l i gent l y wai ve hi s r i ght t o t est i f y

on hi s own behal f . Gar ut i r el i ed on hi s own 36- page af f i davi t

r eci t i ng var i ous f act s per t i nent t o hi s t r i al counsel s

per f or mance. Gar ut i sought t o obt ai n an addi t i onal af f i davi t f r om

hi s t r i al counsel i n suppor t of hi s mot i on, f ur ni shi ng t r i al

counsel wi t h a dr af t af f i davi t . Tr i al counsel sent Gar ut i s

appel l at e counsel a l et t er st at i ng t hat he had r ef used t o si gn t he

dr af t because i t was i naccur at e, wi t hout speci f yi ng t he cl ai med

i naccur aci es.

On t he same day t hat Gar ut i f i l ed hi s new t r i al mot i on,

Gar ut i al so moved f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng i n st at e cour t i n

or der t o mor e f ul l y devel op t he r ecor d on hi s i nef f ect i ve

assi st ance cl ai m ( by, f or exampl e, obt ai ni ng t est i mony f r om t r i al

counsel ) . Gar ut i ar gued t hat he was ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ar y

hear i ng because hi s own af f i davi t r ai sed ser i ous quest i ons of f act

1 Gar ut i ar gued pr i mar i l y t hat hi s t r i al counsel sper f or mance was def i ci ent because: ( 1) t r i al counsel di d notconsul t wi t h Gar ut i adequat el y; ( 2) t r i al counsel f ai l ed t opr oper l y pr epar e Gar ut i t o t est i f y at t r i al ; ( 3) t r i al counsel di d

not pr oper l y advi se Gar ut i of t he st r at egi c i mpl i cat i ons of f ai l i ngt o t est i f y i n hi s own def ense; ( 4) t r i al counsel di d not pr oper l ycr oss- exami ne t wo Massachuset t s st ate t r ooper s who i nt er r ogatedGar ut i ; and ( 5) t r i al counsel f ai l ed t o pr ovi de Gar ut i wi t h anaf f i davi t i n suppor t of hi s mot i on f or a new t r i al ( i . e. , anaf f i davi t out l i ni ng t r i al counsel s vi ews as t o hi s ownper f ormance) .

- 3-


4/22

r egar di ng hi s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai ms. The Commonweal t h

ar gued t hat no evi dent i ar y hear i ng was r equi r ed because Gar ut i s

swor n af f i davi t was concl usor y and sel f - ser vi ng.

On May 12, 2008, t he Super i or Cour t deni ed bot h t he new

t r i al mot i on and t he mot i on f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, r ul i ng t hat

t he def endant s mot i on f or a new t r i al i s her eby deni ed wi t hout a

hear i ng. S. A. 196 ( emphasi s r emoved) . The cour t was

unper suaded by Gar ut i s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance ar gument , and

not ed t hat i t woul d not credi t t he def endant s sel f - ser vi ng

cont ent i ons. S. A. 195. The t r i al cour t al so r el i ed on t r i al

counsel s st at ement t o Gar ut i s appel l at e counsel t hat he woul d not

si gn t he pr oposed af f i davi t because i t was i naccur at e. S. A. 195.

Though t r i al counsel had not f urni shed an af f i davi t , t he t r i al

j udge concl uded t hat i t i s pure specul at i on t hat such an af f i davi t

woul d be hel pf ul t o [ Gar ut i s] cause. S. A. 195.

On May 21, 2008, Garut i appeal ed t o t he Massachuset t s

Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t . On J une 10, 2009, t he Supr eme J udi ci al

Cour t af f i r med. See Commonweal t h v. Gar ut i , 907 N. E. 2d 221 ( Mass.

2009) ( SJ C Deci si on) . The Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t concl uded t hat

t her e was no . . . i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel t hat woul d

r equi r e a new t r i al , i d. at 230, and t hat t her ef or e [ t he t r i al

j udge] was war r ant ed i n not grant i ng [ Gar ut i s] mot i on f or an

evi dent i ary hear i ng on t he mot i on. I d. at 232. Based on a

col l oquy Gar ut i had i n open cour t wi t h t he t r i al j udge, t he Supr eme

- 4-


5/22

J udi ci al Cour t had hel d t hat t he r ecor d suppor t s t he [ t r i al ]

j udge s concl usi on t hat t he def endant s wai ver of hi s r i ght t o

t est i f y was knowi ng and i nt el l i gent . I d.

On August 27, 2010, pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 2254, Garut i

f i l ed hi s habeas pet i t i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t . The pet i t i on

r ei t er at ed Gar ut i s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai ms and ar gued t hat

t he st at e cour t s deni al of an evi dent i ar y hear i ng on t hese cl ai ms

was a vi ol at i on of due pr ocess. The pet i t i on al so r ai sed anot her

const i t ut i onal due pr ocess cl ai m al l egi ng t hat Gar ut i di d not

knowi ngl y and i nt el l i gent l y wai ve hi s ri ght t o t est i f y at hi s

t r i al . Af t er f i l i ng t he pet i t i on, Gar ut i moved f or an evi dent i ar y

hear i ng i n t he di st r i ct cour t . The magi st r at e j udge deni ed t he

mot i on f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, r easoni ng t hat t he mer i t s of

Garut i s 2254 habeas cl ai m had been reasonabl y addr essed by t he

Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t on t he r ecor d bef or e i t and t hat , as a

r esul t , Cul l en v. Pi nhol st er , __ U. S. __, 131 S. Ct . 1388, 1398

( 2011) , barr ed such a hear i ng. Garut i v. Roden, No. 10- 11473- RGS,

2012 WL 381045, at *1 ( D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2012) .

Subsequent l y, on August 24, 2012, t he magi st r ate j udge

i ssued a repor t and r ecommendat i on advi si ng t he di st r i ct j udge t o

di smi ss t he habeas pet i t i on. See Garut i v. Roden, No. 10- 11473-

FDS, 2012 WL 5866252 ( D. Mass. Aug. 24, 2012) ( Repor t and

Recommendat i on) . I n recommendi ng t hat t he pet i t i on be di smi ssed,

t he magi st r at e j udge r ei t er at ed t hat t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d

- 5-


6/22

pr ovi de[ d] a const i t ut i onal l y suf f i ci ent basi s f or t he t r i al cour t

t o r ul e on t he mot i on f or a new t r i al wi t hout an evi dent i ar y

hear i ng and f or t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t t o af f i r mt hat r ul i ng.

I d. at *20.

On November 16, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t adopt ed t he

magi st r at e j udge s r eport and r ecommendat i on, di smi ssi ng t he

pet i t i on and hol di ng t hat t he st at e cour t r ecor d was suf f i ci ent t o

r esol ve t he case. See Garut i v. Roden, No. 10- 11473- FDS, 2012 WL

5866248 ( D. Mass. Nov. 16, 2012) ( Di st r i ct Cour t Or der ) . The

di st r i ct cour t i ssued t he cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y r equi r ed by

28 U. S. C. 2253( c) , and Gar ut i t i mel y appeal ed t o t hi s cour t .

II

On appeal , Gar ut i ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d

have gr ant ed hi man evi dent i ary hear i ng. He ur ges t hat t he Supr eme

J udi ci al Cour t s deci si ons wer e based on an i ncompl et e r ecor d and

t hat t he r ej ect i ons of hi s Si xt h Amendment i nef f ect i ve assi st ance

and Four t eent h Amendment due pr ocess cl ai ms were ther ef or e based on

obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e det er mi nat i ons of t he f act s under

2254( d) ( 2) and unr easonabl e appl i cat i ons of Supr eme Cour t case

l aw under 2254( d) ( 1) .

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t s deni al of habeas r el i ef

wi t h r espect t o t he cl ai ms rai sed i n st at e cour t de novo. Lynch v.

Fi cco, 438 F. 3d 35, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( ci t i ng El l swor t h v.

War den, 333 F. 3d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ) . We r evi ew t he di st r i ct

- 6-


7/22

cour t s r ef usal t o hol d an evi dent i ar y hear i ng f or abuse of

di scr et i on. Compani o v. O Br i en, 672 F. 3d 101, 112 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( ci t i ng For syt h v. Spencer , 595 F. 3d 81, 85 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) .

A

We f i r st consi der t he ext ent t o whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t s

deci si on i n Pi nhol st er bar s evi dent i ar y hear i ngs under 2254( d) .

That sect i on provi des t hat

[ a] n appl i cat i on f or a wr i t of habeas cor pus onbehal f of a per son i n cust ody pur suant t o t hej udgment of a St at e cour t shal l not be grant ed wi t hr espect t o any cl ai m t hat was adj udi cat ed on t hemer i t s i n St at e cour t pr oceedi ngs unl ess t headj udi cat i on of t he cl ai m

( 1) r esul t ed i n a deci si on t hat was cont r ar yt o, or i nvol ved an unr easonabl e appl i cat i onof , cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw, asdet ermi ned by t he Supreme Cour t of t he Uni t edSt at es; or

( 2) r esul t ed i n a deci si on t hat was based onan unr easonabl e det er mi nat i on of t he f act s i n

l i ght of t he evi dence pr esent ed i n t he St at ecour t pr oceedi ng.

28 U. S. C. 2254( d) . Under t hi s sect i on, habeas cor pus rel i ef i s

onl y avai l abl e i f t he st at e cour t s concl usi on i s based upon a

f act ual det er mi nat i on t hat i s obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e i n l i ght of

t he evi dence pr esent ed i n t he st at e cour t proceedi ng. Mi l l er -

El v. Cockr el l , 537 U. S. 322, 340 ( 2003) . Gar ut i ar gues t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y i nt er pr et ed Pi nhol st er t o cat egor i cal l y

bar hear i ngs i n f eder al habeas pr oceedi ngs, except i n si t uat i ons

- 7-


8/22

wher e t he st at e cour t deci si on r est ed excl usi vel y on a f i ndi ng of

pr ocedur al def aul t .

Pi nhol st er makes cl ear t hat r evi ew under 2254( d) ( 1) i s

l i mi t ed t o t he r ecor d t hat was bef or e t he st at e cour t t hat

adj udi cat ed t he cl ai m on t he mer i t s. 131 S. Ct . at 1398. But

Gar ut i ar gues t hat t he evi dent i ar y hear i ng bar appl i es onl y t o

r evi ew under 2254( d) ( 1) . Subsequent out - of - ci r cui t aut hor i t y

est abl i shes t hat i t appl i es under 2254( d) ( 2) as wel l .

See Bl ue v. Thal er , 665 F. 3d 647, 656 n. 26 ( 5t h Ci r . 2011)

( [ Secti on] 2254( d) ( 2) . . . expr essl y i nst r ucts t hat t he st at e

cour t s deci si on must be eval uat ed i n l i ght of t he evi dence

pr esent ed i n t he St at e Cour t pr oceedi ng. ( quot i ng 28 U. S. C.

2254( d) ( 2) ) ) . We agr ee t hat t he evi dent i ar y hear i ng bar appl i es

t o r evi ew under bot h sect i ons of 2254( d) . Thi s cour t has not ed

speci f i cal l y t hat [ r ] evi ew under t he f act pr ong [ i . e. , Secti on

2254( d) ( 2) ] i s l i mi t ed t o t he r ecor d t hat was bef or e [ t he] st at e

cour t . Br own v. O Br i en, 666 F. 3d 818, 822 n. 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . 2

The di f f i cul t quest i on i n t hi s case r el at es t o t he scope

of Pi nhol st er s bar on evi dent i ar y hear i ngs under bot h por t i ons of

2254. Gar ut i f i r st ar gues t hat , because t he st at e cour t hel d no

evi dent i ar y hear i ng t o r esol ve cont est ed i ssues of f act , t he cl ai ms

2 See al so Rount r ee v. Bal i cki , 640 F. 3d 530, 538 ( 3d Ci r .2011) ( I mpor t ant l y, t he evi dence agai nst whi ch a f eder al cour tmeasur es t he r easonabl eness of t he st at e cour t s f act ual f i ndi ngsi s t he r ecor d evi dence at t he t i me of t he st at e cour t sadj udi cat i on. ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) .

- 8-


9/22

at i ssue her e wer e not adj udi cat e[ d] on t he mer i t s, as 2254

r equi r es. Gar ut i ur ges us t o f ol l ow cases si mi l ar t o Wi nst on v.

Kel l y, 592 F. 3d 535, 555- 56 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010) , whi ch decl i ned t o

ext end 2254 def erence t o a st ate cour t j udgment r ul i ng t hat such

def er ence woul d be i nappr opr i ate because j udgment on a mater i al l y

i ncompl et e r ecor d i s not an adj udi cat i on on t he mer i t s f or t he

pur pose of 2254( d) . See al so Wi l son v. Workman, 577 F. 3d 1284,

1293 ( 10t h Ci r . 2009) ( en banc) ( To di spose of a cl ai m wi t hout

consi der i ng t he f act s suppor t i ng i t i s not a deci si on on t he

mer i t s. ) ; Br own v. Smi t h, 551 F. 3d 424, 428- 29 ( 6t h Ci r . 2008)

( hol di ng that a pet i t i oner s i nef f ecti ve- assi st ance- of - counsel

cl ai m ha[ d] not been adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s because t he

counsel i ng not es t hat f or m[ ed] t he basi s of t he cl ai m wer e not i n

t he r ecor d bef or e t he Mi chi gan Cour t of Appeal s) .

Al t hough t hese deci si ons by ot her cour t s appear t o

suppor t Gar ut i s posi t i on, a r ecent deci si on of our cour t st ands i n

Gar ut i s way. I n At ki ns v. Cl ar ke, 642 F. 3d 47, 48 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) , t hi s cour t r ej ect ed t he vi ew t hat t her e can be no deci si on

on t he mer i t s wi t hi n t he meani ng of 2254( d) unl ess t her e was an

evi dent i ar y hear i ng. Thi s cour t hel d t hat t hose cases on whi ch

Gar ut i r el i es wer e essent i al l y over r ul ed by Pi nhol st er . See 642

F. 3d at 49. I ndeed, Gar ut i concedes that At ki ns decl i ned t o

accept t he r at i onal e of t he Four t h Ci r cui t i n Wi nst on and t he Tent h

Ci r cui t i n Wor kman. Appel l ant s Br . 25 n. 14.

- 9-


10/22

Mor eover , t he Supr eme Cour t i n Har r i ngt on v. Ri cht er , __

U. S. ___ , ___ , 131 S. Ct . 770, 785 ( 2011) , hel d, consi st ent wi t h

At ki ns, t hat [ w] hen a f eder al cl ai m has been pr esent ed t o a st at e

cour t and t he st at e cour t has deni ed r el i ef , i t may be pr esumed

t hat t he st at e cour t adj udi cat ed t he cl ai m on t he mer i t s i n t he

absence of any i ndi cat i on or st at e- l aw pr ocedur al pr i nci pl es t o t he

cont r ary. 131 S. Ct . at 784- 85 ( emphasi s added) .

Af t er Har r i ngt on, t he r easoni ng of Br own and si mi l ar

cases on whi ch Gar ut i r el i es has been r ej ect ed by t he Si xth Ci r cui t

i t sel f . Bal l i nger v. Pr el esni k, 709 F. 3d 558, 562 ( 6t h Ci r . 2013) .

Bal l i nger concl uded t hat , t o t he ext ent t hat pr e- Har r i ngt on

deci si ons such as Workman and Br own ar e i nconsi st ent wi t h

Har r i ngt on s def i ni t i on of on t he mer i t s, such deci si ons ar e no

l onger t he l aw. I d. We ar e, i n any event , bound by At ki ns, whi ch

i s i nconsi st ent wi t h Gar ut i s t heor y t hat t her e can be no deci si on

on t he mer i t s i f t her e has been no evi dent i ar y hear i ng on di sput ed

f act s.

Gar ut i al t er nat i vel y ar gues t hat Pi nhol st er does not bar

an evi dent i ar y hear i ng i n di st r i ct cour t because the Massachuset t s

Cour t s r ef usal t o hol d an evi dent i ar y hear i ng vi ol at ed due

pr ocess. The Fi f t h Ci r cui t has hel d t hat due pr ocess i s vi ol at ed

wher e t he st at e cour t has r ef used t o hol d a hear i ng despi t e t he

exi st ence of a pr i ma f aci e val i d cl ai m. See Smi t h v. Cai n, 708

F. 3d 628, 634- 35 ( 5t h Ci r . 2013) ; Bl ue v. Thal er , 665 F. 3d 647, 657

- 10-


11/22

( 5t h Ci r . 2011) . Thi s hol di ng i s based on t he pr i nci pl e t hat t he

st at e cour t s deni al of t he evi dent i ar y hear i ng i n such cases

r un[ s] af oul of t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause, whi ch st r i ps t he st at e s

r ul i ng of 2254 def er ence. Bl ue, 665 F. 3d at 657. I f t he st at e

cour t s r ef usal t o hol d an evi dent i ar y hear i ng was a due pr ocess

vi ol at i on, t he t heor y goes, t he di st r i ct cour t i s r equi r ed t o hol d

an evi dent i ar y hear i ng. The cour t r easoned i n Smi t h t hat

Pi nhol st er s l i mi t at i on on f eder al evi dent i ar y hear i ngs does not

appl y once t he di st r i ct cour t concl ude[ s] , sol el y on t he basi s of

t he st at e cour t r ecor d, t hat t he st at e t r i al cour t unr easonabl y

appl i ed f eder al l aw ( e. g. , unr easonabl y vi ol at ed t he Due Pr ocess

Cl ause) . 708 F. 3d at 635.

Thi s cour t has not addr essed t hi s quest i on, and we need

not r esol ve t he i ssue her e because t he f act ual ci r cumst ances t hat

coul d t r i gger an except i on t o Pi nhol st er s bar on evi dent i ar y

hear i ngs do not exi st i n t hi s case. As we di scuss bel ow, Gar ut i

di d not pr esent a pr i ma f aci e val i d cl ai m r ai si ng a subst ant i al

f act ual i ssue t hat mi ght have r equi r ed a hear i ng i n t he

Massachuset t s Super i or Cour t , and hence a hear i ng i n t he di st r i ct

cour t . Thus, Pi nhol st er and 2254( d) bar r ed t he di st r i ct cour t

f r omgrant i ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, even i f we wer e t o agr ee wi t h

t he due pr ocess t heor y ar t i cul at ed i n t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t cases

descr i bed above.

- 11-


12/22

B

I n af f i r mi ng t he deni al of an evi dent i ar y hear i ng by the

Massachuset t s Super i or Cour t , t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t hel d t hat

Gar ut i had not est abl i shed t hat subst ant i al f act ual i ssues exi st ed.

Gar ut i cont ends t hat t hi s r ul i ng of f ended basi c pr i nci pl es of due

pr ocess est abl i shed i n Pat t er son v. New Yor k, 432 U. S. 197 ( 1977) .

However , Pat t er son est abl i shes a hi gh bar . I t makes cl ear t hat

st at e l aw evi dent i ar y pr ocedur es are not subj ect t o pr oscr i pt i on

under t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause unl ess [ t hey] of f end[ ] some pr i nci pl e

of j ust i ce so root ed i n t he t r adi t i ons and consci ence of our peopl e

as t o be r anked as f undament al . 432 U. S. at 201- 02 ( quot i ng

Spei ser v. Randal l , 357 U. S. 513, 523 ( 1958) ) . Thi s cour t has hel d

t hat t o pr ovi de gr ound[ s] [ f or ] f eder al habeas r el i ef , an

i mpr oper r ul i ng on an evi dent i ar y i ssue i n st at e cour t must be so

ar bi t r ar y and capr i ci ous as t o const i t ut e an i ndependent due

pr ocess . . . vi ol at i on. Coni ngf or d v. Rhode I sl and, 640 F. 3d

478, 484 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Lewi s v. J ef f er s, 497 U. S. 764,

780 ( 1990) ) .

Here, t he st at e l aw pr ocedur es empl oyed were reasonabl e

bot h on t hei r f ace and as- appl i ed. Massachuset t s Rul e of Cr i mi nal

Pr ocedur e 30( c) ( 3) al l ows a mot i on f or a new t r i al t o be r ej ect ed

wi t hout f ur t her hear i ng i f no subst ant i al i ssue i s r ai sed by t he

- 12-


13/22

mot i on or af f i davi t s. Mass. R. Cr i m. P. 30( c) ( 3) ; see S. A. 194. 3

Gar ut i pr ovi des no ar gument or anal ysi s suggest i ng t hat t hi s

cri mi nal pr ocedur e r ul e i t sel f vi ol at es basi c pr i nci pl es of due

pr ocess.

Ther e was al so not hi ng unconst i t ut i onal about t he st at e

cour t s appl i cat i on of i t s own cr i mi nal pr ocedur e r ul es i n t hi s

case. To be sur e, t he di st r i ct cour t l i kel y er r ed i n r el yi ng on

Gar ut i s f or mer counsel s l et t er and hi s r ef usal t o si gn t he

pr oposed af f i davi t t o suppor t t he deni al of an evi dent i ar y hear i ng.

Repor t and Recommendat i on, 2012 WL 5866252, at *11 ( Tr i al

counsel s descri pt i on of t he cont ent s of t he af f i davi t as

i naccur at e t hus pr ovi des f ur t her suppor t f or t he Supr eme J udi ci al

Cour t s and t r i al cour t s f actual det er mi nat i on vi s- - vi s t he

adequacy of pet i t i oner s consul t at i on wi t h t r i al counsel about t he

r i ght t o t est i f y. ) . The Feder al Rul es of Evi dence gener al l y appl y

i n habeas pr oceedi ngs i n di st r i ct cour t s, Lol i sci o v. Goor d,

263 F. 3d 178, 186 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) , and t r i al counsel s st at ement s

r egar di ng t he i naccur acy of t he pr oposed af f i davi t i n t he l et t er t o

appel l at e counsel ar e hear say and do not f al l under any r ecogni zed

hearsay except i on. Ther ef ore, t hey shoul d not have been consi der ed

by t he di st r i ct cour t i n deci di ng whet her a subst ant i al i ssue of

3 Though t he t r i al cour t opi ni on ci t es Mass. R. Cr i m. P.30( b) ( 3) , i t i s c l ear t hat t he t r i al cour t i nt ended t o ci t e Rul e30( c)( 3) , as t hi s i s t he r ul e per t ai ni ng t o af f i davi t s ( no Rul e30( b) ( 3) exi sts) .

- 13-


14/22

f act exi st ed. 4 Fed. R. Evi d. 802. However , as we now di scuss,

qui t e apar t f r om hi s f or mer counsel s st at ement , not hi ng i n

Gar ut i s own af f i davi t and t he t r i al r ecor d r ai ses a subst ant i al

f act ual i ssue or suppor t s gr ant i ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng.

1

I n at t empt i ng t o make out a due pr ocess vi ol at i on, Gar ut i

f i r st ar gues t hat t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d, al ong wi t h hi s

af f i davi t , r ai sed a substant i al St r i ckl and i ssue t hat t r i al

counsel s consul t at i on wi t h Gar ut i was i nadequat e over al l . Under

St r i ckl and, t he pet i t i oner has t he bur den t o show by a

pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hat ( 1) counsel s per f or mance f el l

bel ow an obj ect i ve st andar d of r easonabl eness, and ( 2) t her e i s a

r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but f or counsel s er r or , t he r esul t of

t he pr oceedi ngs woul d have been di f f er ent . Smul l en v. Uni t ed

St at es, 94 F. 3d 20, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) . I n hi s af f i davi t , Gar ut i

aver r ed t hat he made numer ous ef f or t s t o cont act hi s t r i al

counsel and t hat , [ d] espi t e [ hi s] r epeat ed ef f or t s . . . , t he

amount of t i me [ t r i al counsel ] consul t ed wi t h [ hi m] about t he f act s

of [ hi s] case was mi ni mal . S. A. 309. Gar ut i al l eged t hat he had

t wo i n- per son consul t at i ons wi t h t r i al counsel t hat wer e not of

any gr eat dur at i on. S. A. 310. Gar ut i al so st at ed t hat he pl aced

4 The J udi ci al Code concer ni ng habeas cor pus makespr ovi si ons f or t he admi ssi on of cer t ai n evi dence such asaf f i davi t s, 28 U. S. C. 2246, and f ul l t r anscri pt s, 28 U. S. C. 2247, but unsworn st at ement s ar e not made admi ss i bl e by t hestatute.

- 14-


15/22

t el ephone cal l s t o t r i al counsel but t hat [ he] was abl e t o speak

t o [ t r i al counsel ] br i ef l y on onl y a f ew of t h[ ose] occasi ons.

S. A. 310. Fi nal l y, Gar ut i al l eged t hat he wr ot e many l et t er s t o

t r i al counsel , onl y r ecei ved a f ew r el at i vel y shor t l et t er s i n

r esponse whi l e he was awai t i ng t r i al , and t hese r esponsi ve l et t er s

di d not addr ess t he f act s of t he case i n any degr ee of det ai l .

S. A. 310. 5

We f i nd t hat t he al l egat i ons i n Gar ut i s af f i davi t r ai se

no subst ant i al i ssues because t hey ar e non- speci f i c i n nat ur e and

concl usor y. Gar ut i pr ovi des no speci f i c i nf or mat i on concer ni ng t he

dur at i on of hi s i n- per son or t el ephone conver sat i ons wi t h t r i al

counsel . Gar ut i al so f ai l ed t o at t ach any of t he l et t er s sent t o

or r ecei ved f r om counsel ( or any ot her document ar y or t est i moni al

evi dence i n hi s possessi on) t o hi s af f i davi t . Concl usor y

al l egat i ons ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o r ai se a substant i al f act ual i ssue.

Uni t ed St at es v. Sout har d, 700 F. 2d 1, 10 ( 1st Ci r . 1983) ;

see Mendez- Apont e v. Boni l l a, 645 F. 3d 60, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; see

al so Kunkl e v. Dr et ke, 352 F. 3d 980, 987 ( 5t h Ci r . 2003) . Thi s

cour t r ej ect ed such i nadequat e consul t at i on cl ai ms wher e suppor t

was si mi l ar l y l acki ng. See, e. g. , McCar t hy v. Uni t ed St at es,

764 F. 2d 28, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) ( r ej ect i ng cl ai m t hat counsel

spent an i nadequate amount of t i me consul t i ng wi t h t he pet i t i oner

5 Gar ut i al so aver r ed t hat t r i al counsel di d not r evi ew t hepol i ce r epor t s per t ai ni ng t o t he i nci dent wi t h hi m.

- 15-


16/22

i n pr epar at i on f or [ a] sent enci ng pr oceedi ng) . The t r i al cour t

r ecor d al so pr ovi des no suppor t f or Gar ut i s cl ai m of i nadequat e

consul t at i on. Thus, t he i nadequat e consul t at i on cl ai m pr ovi ded no

basi s f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng.

2

Gar ut i next ar gues t hat hi s t r i al at t or ney render ed

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance because he i nadequat el y consul t ed wi t h

Gar ut i r egar di ng Gar ut i s ver si on of what happened dur i ng hi s

i nt er r ogat i on wi t h t wo st at e t r ooper s t hat l ed t o Gar ut i s

conf essi on, and t hat , as a r esul t , t r i al counsel f ai l ed t o pr oper l y

cross- exami ne t hem. Gar ut i s af f i davi t r eci t es hi s ver si on of t he

f act s sur r oundi ng hi s i nt er r ogat i on wi t h t he st at e t r ooper s.

Al t hough i t concl udes gener al l y t hat [ t r i al counsel ] di d not

consul t wi t h [ Gar ut i ] i n any si gni f i cant way r egar di ng t he

ant i ci pated t est i mony of most of t he Commonweal t h s wi t nesses,

S. A. 311, i t does not cont ai n any speci f i c i nf or mat i on per t ai ni ng

t o t r i al counsel s consul t at i on or l ack t her eof r egar di ng hi s

cr oss- exami nat i ons of t he st at e t r ooper s.

Thi s l ack of speci f i c al l egat i ons, combi ned wi t h an

anal ysi s of t he t r i al r ecor d, makes cl ear t hat Gar ut i has not

r ai sed a subst ant i al i ssue. The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t he

t r i al t r anscr i pt showed t hat counsel had a f i r mgr asp of t he f act s

of t he case and pet i t i oner s si de of t he st or y and t hat counsel

adequat el y cr oss- exami ned t he Commonweal t h s wi t nesses, i ncl udi ng

- 16-


17/22

t he st at e t r ooper s. Di st r i ct Cour t Or der , 2012 WL 5866248, at *2.

The Supreme J udi ci al Cour t anal yzed t r i al counsel s cr oss

exami nat i on of both t r ooper s and f ound that counsel i mpeached thei r

t est i mony i n var i ous r espect s. Speci f i cal l y, t he Supr eme J udi ci al

Cour t expl ai ned t hat t r i al counsel el i ci t ed t est i mony i ndi cat i ng

t hat one t r ooper di d not r ecor d Gar ut i s st at ement and had a f aul t y

memory and t hat t he ot her t r ooper had onl y been i n t he

i nt er r ogat i on r oom f or f i ve mi nut es. The f act t hat t he t r ooper s

had f ai l ed t o r ecor d t he i nt er r ogat i on was appar ent l y a f act t hat

Garut i want ed emphasi zed by t r i al counsel , as Garut i has t wo

separ at e par agr aphs i n hi s af f i davi t t hat emphasi ze t he i mpor t ance

of t hi s l ack of a r ecor di ng. The Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t al so

expl ai ned t hat t r i al counsel obt ai ned a key admi ssi on f r om one of

t he t r ooper s t hat i ndi cat ed t hat t r i al counsel was f ami l i ar wi t h

Gar ut i s si de of t he st or y. 6 The Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t al so

poi nt ed t o quest i oni ng of ot her wi t nesses suggest i ng t hat counsel

was ver y knowl edgeabl e about t he f act s of t he case, whi ch i n i t s

vi ew bel i e[ d] [ Gar ut i s] cont ent i on t hat t r i al counsel di d not

know t he t he def endant s si de of t he st or y . . . . SJ C Deci si on,

907 N. E. 2d. at 231.

6 Speci f i cal l y, a t r ooper admi t t ed t o Gar ut i s counsel t hatGar ut i had t ol d t he t r ooper t hat , i mmedi at el y bef or e t he acci dent ,he di d not r i ght ( or cor r ect ) t he wheel s t o hi s vehi cl e bef or eexi t i ng hi s ex- wi f e s dr i veway ( wher e t he acci dent occur r ed) .Pr esumabl y, Gar ut i want ed t he j ur y t o bel i eve t hat he di d not know( or had f orgot t en) whi ch way t he wheel s of hi s car were t ur ned whenhe at t empt ed t o dr i ve away.

- 17-


18/22

To be sur e, t r i al counsel di d not quest i on t he pol i ce

wi t nesses about t hei r al l eged abusi ve i nt er r ogat i on t act i cs i n

seeki ng Gar ut i s conf essi on, but Gar ut i has f ai l ed t o show t hat t he

t r i al counsel s al l eged i nadequacy st emmed f r omf ai l ur e t o consul t

wi t h Gar ut i . The deci si on not t o quest i on t he pol i ce wi t nesses

r egardi ng t he al l eged abusi ve i nt er r ogat i on may have been a

j udgment t hat t hese quest i ons woul d be nei t her desi r abl e nor

usef ul .

Because we concl ude t hat t he record bef ore t he st ate

cour t made cl ear t hat t r i al counsel had suf f i ci ent knowl edge of t he

i nt er r ogat i on under St r i ckl and, and Gar ut i s concl usor y af f i davi t

does not under mi ne t hi s concl usi on, Gar ut i has not r ai sed a

subst ant i al f actual i ssue.

3

Fi nal l y, Gar ut i makes St r i ckl and ar gument s r el at i ng t o

hi s deci si on not t o t est i f y at t r i al . He cont ends t hat counsel di d

not adequat el y pr epar e Gar ut i t o t est i f y or expl ai n f ul l y t he

st r at egi c i mpl i cat i ons of Gar ut i s deci si on not t o t est i f y. On t he

i ssue of hi s deci si on not t o test i f y, however , t he Supr eme J udi ci al

Cour t poi nt ed t o evi dence i n t he r ecor d suggest i ng t hat t r i al

counsel per f or med r easonabl y. Fi r st , i t expl ai ned t hat Gar ut i

admi t t ed i n hi s own af f i davi t t hat t r i al counsel emphat i cal l y t ol d

[ Gar ut i ] hi s vi ew of t he r i sks I f aced i f I t est i f i ed. SJ C

Deci si on, 907 N. E. 2d at 232; see al so S. A. 312. Tr i al counsel had

- 18-


19/22

been par t i cul ar l y concer ned t hat , gi ven t he t r oubl ed r el at i onshi p

Gar ut i had had wi t h hi s ex- wi f e, Gar ut i woul d vi l i f y her dur i ng t he

t est i mony, whi ch woul d l i kel y r esul t i n a gui l t y ver di ct . The

Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t expl ai ned t hat Gar ut i di d not di sput e t hat

t hi s was sound advi ce. 7 Al t hough t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t

r ecogni zed t hat Gar ut i s pr i mar y compl ai nt was t hat t r i al counsel

di d not i nf or mhi mof t he benef i t s of t est i f yi ng ( i . e. , t hat Gar ut i

coul d t el l hi s si de of t he st or y) , t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t

concl uded t hat t r i al counsel s emphasi s on r i sks over benef i t s was

not mani f est l y unr easonabl e. See SJ C Deci si on, 907 N. E. 2d at 232.

Gar ut i agai n ar gues t hat t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t

unr easonabl y appl i ed t he f act s because i t di d not have t he benef i t

of a compl et e r ecor d. However , i t i s cl ear agai n t hat he has not

r ai sed a subst ant i al i ssue. Gar ut i s af f i davi t concedes t hat

t r i al counsel emphat i cal l y t ol d [ Gar ut i ] hi s vi ews of t he

r i sks . . . i f [ Gar ut i ] test i f i ed. S. A. 312. The r ecor d her e

est abl i shes t hat i t woul d not have been unr easonabl e f or an

at t or ney i n t r i al counsel s shoes t o have pr i mar i l y emphasi zed t he

r i sks of t est i f yi ng over t he benef i t s.

As t hi s cour t hel d i n Lema v. Uni t ed St at es, 987 F. 2d 48,

52 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) , [ u] naccompani ed by coer ci on, l egal advi ce

concer ni ng exer ci se of t he r i ght t o t est i f y i nf r i nges no r i ght

7 The Supreme J udi ci al Cour t al so not ed t hat Gar ut i st est i mony coul d have opened t he door t o a r ebut t al wi t ness whocoul d have t est i f i ed r egar di ng t he vi ct i m s f ear of t he def endant .

- 19-


20/22


21/22

deci si on not t o t est i f y was made af t er adequat e consul t at i on wi t h

hi s counsel and was hi s own deci si on and st at ed t hat t r i al counsel

was act i ng most cer t ai nl y i n hi s best i nt er est s. SJ C Deci si on,

907 N. E. 2d at 232 ( i nt er nal quot at i on omi t t ed) . Gar ut i r eaf f i r med

hi s wai ver af t er t he t r i al j udge br i ef l y suspended t he col l oquy t o

al l ow pet i t i oner t o consul t counsel one l ast t i me bef or e commi t t i ng

t o hi s wai ver . Di st r i ct Cour t Or der , 2012 WL 5866248, at *2. I n

hi s af f i davi t , Gar ut i admi t s t hat [t ] he t r i al j udge hel d [ t hi s]

col l oquy wi t h [ hi m] r egar di ng [ hi s] r i ght t o t est i f y, and

[ Gar ut i ] under st ood t hat i t was ent i r el y [ hi s] deci si on [ of ]

whet her or not t o t est i f y. S. A. 313. 8 Gar ut i has agai n f ai l ed t o

r ai se a subst ant i al quest i on t hat mi ght r equi r e an evi dent i ar y

hear i ng. 9

8 Thi s cour t has hel d i n ot her cont ext s, mor eover , t hatknowi ng and i nt el l i gent wai ver s of r i ght s occur wher e t he

def endant i s awar e of t he r i sks associ at ed wi t h hi s deci si on.See, e. g. , Tui t t v. Fai r , 822 F. 2d 166, 176 ( 1st Ci r . 1987)( di scussi ng wai ver of r i ght t o counsel ) .

9 Gar ut i al so r ai ses a cl ai m t hat hi s f or mer t r i alcounsel s r ef usal t o f ur ni sh an af f i davi t descri bi ng hi s conduct ,i n and of i t sel f , const i t ut ed i nef f ecti ve assi st ance of counsel .But t hi s cl ai m al so does not r ai se a subst ant i al i ssue. TheSupr eme J udi ci al Cour t deter mi ned that an at t orney does not have adut y to pr ovi de an af f i davi t t o accompany a def endant s mot i on f ora new t r i al . SJ C Deci si on, 907 N. E. 2d at 230. I t agr ee[ d] wi t ht he [ t r i al ] j udge t hat even i f t her e wer e a dut y t o pr ovi de an

af f i davi t , i t i s pur e specul at i on t hat t he af f i davi t woul d havebeen hel pf ul . I d. Based on t he f or egoi ng anal ysi s, we agr ee andf i nd t hi s argument t o be wi t hout mer i t .

Gar ut i f ur t her cl ai ms t hat hi s f or mer t r i al counself ai l ed t o pr epar e hi m t o t est i f y. Even i f Gar ut i wer e cor r ect,t hi s r ai ses no St r i ckl and i ssue. Gi ven Gar ut i s deci si on not t o

- 21-


22/22

To t he ext ent t hat Gar ut i cont ends t hat i n ot her r espect s

he has sat i sf i ed t he st andar ds of 2254( d) , even wi t hout an

evi dent i ar y hear i ng, t her e i s no mer i t t o t hi s cl ai m.

III

Because i t i s cl ear her e t hat Gar ut i s cl ai m was

adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s by t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t , and Gar ut i

has not r ai sed a subst ant i al i ssue t hat mi ght r equi r e an

evi dent i ar y hear i ng, t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t i s

af f i r med.

AFFIRMED

t est i f y, t he al l eged f ai l ur e t o pr epar e hi m does not meet t hepr ej udi ce pr ong of t he St r i ckl and t est .

- 22-

garuti v. roden, 1st cir. (2013)

Documents