Hensley v. Roden, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Hensley v. Roden, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/28

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1147

KEVI N HENSLEY,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

GARY RODEN,Super i nt endent , MCI Nor f ol k,

Respondent , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Rya W. Zobel , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howar d, Sel ya, and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

St ewar t T. Gr aham, J r . , wi t h whom Gr aham & Gr aham was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant .

J enni f er L. Sul l i van, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , wi t h whomMar t ha Coakl ey, At t or ney Gener al , was on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J une 20, 2014


2/28

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Kevi n Hensl ey ( "Hensl ey") was

convi ct ed i n Massachuset t s st at e cour t of f i r st degr ee mur der af t er

ki l l i ng hi s est r anged wi f e, Nancy Hensl ey ( "Nancy") . Hensl ey

appeal ed and the Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t ( "SJ C")

af f i r med. Hensl ey t ur ned t o t he f eder al cour t s. Al l egi ng

vi ol at i ons of hi s Si xth Amendment r i ght s t o conf r ont at i on and

ef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel , he sought a wr i t of habeas cor pus

i n Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t . Unconvi nced, t he di st r i ct cour t

deni ed t he pet i t i on. Af t er due consi der at i on, we af f i r m.

I. BACKGROUND

When we consi der a st ate convi ct i on on habeas r evi ew, we

pr esume t he st at e cour t ' s f act ual f i ndi ngs t o be cor r ect . See

Abr am v. Ger r y, 672 F. 3d 45, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . As a r esul t , t he

bel ow f act s are der i ved f r omt he SJ C deci si on, see Commonweal t h v.

Hensl ey, 913 N. E. 2d 339 ( Mass. 2009) , and t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deci si on, whi ch i t sel f dr ew f r om t he SJ C deci si on, see Hensl ey v.

Roden, 2013 WL 22081 ( D. Mass. 2013) .

A. The Crime

Hensl ey and Nancy were mar r i ed i n 1979 and over t he year s

t hey had f our chi l dr en t oget her . By J anuar y 2002, t he marr i age was

i n t r oubl e. The pai r argued about whether Nancy was spendi ng

enough t i me at home or whet her she was spendi ng t oo much t i me at a

l ocal gym, possi bl y i n t he company of men. Hensl ey deci ded t o

i nvest i gat e t he l at t er possi bi l i t y by donni ng a f ake bear d and

-2-


3/28

f ol l owi ng Nancy t o t he gym. Though he saw no si gn of i nf i del i t y on

Nancy' s par t , Hensl ey saw her speak wi t h ot her men and he

conf r ont ed her .

Shor t l y t her eaf t er , on J anuar y 9, 2002, Nancy f i l ed f or

di vor ce and obt ai ned a t emporary abuse prevent i on order agai nst

Hensl ey. The or der r equi r ed Hensl ey t o l eave t he f ami l y' s home,

whi ch was l ocated at 198 Byr on St r eet i n East Bost on. He moved t o

hi s si st er ' s house i n near by Wi nt hr op. As per t he or der , Nancy

r et ai ned cust ody of t he chi l dr en, whomHensl ey was pr ohi bi t ed f r om

cont act i ng pendi ng f ur t her hear i ng.

On J anuar y 16 ( t he schedul ed hear i ng dat e) , t he par t i es

ent ered i nt o an agr eement . The order , whi ch was ent ered as a

t empor ar y or der i n t he di vor ce pr oceedi ng, pr ovi ded t hat apar t f r om

pr ear r anged vi si t at i on wi t h t he chi l dr en, Hensl ey woul d st ay away

f r om t he f ami l y' s home. Hensl ey woul d have use of t he coupl e' s

1988 Pl ymout h Hor i zon automobi l e and Nancy woul d use t hei r 2000

Bui ck LeSabr e. They agr eed t hat t he chi l dr en woul d r emai n i n

Nancy' s car e.

Not happy wi t h t he tur n hi s l i f e had t aken, Hensl ey

became despondent . Accor di ng t o hi s f ami l y, f r i ends, and wor k

super vi sor , Hensl ey appear ed depr essed and di st r aught over t he

br eak- up of hi s f ami l y. He separ at el y conf i ded i n t wo f r i ends t hat

i f he l ost cust ody of hi s chi l dr en, he woul d ki l l Nancy and t hen

hi msel f .

-3-


4/28

On J anuar y 22, Nancy f i l ed a compl ai nt f or cont empt i n

f ami l y cour t , whi ch al l eged t hat Hensl ey was not compl yi ng wi t h t he

agr eement t hey had ent ered i nt o. A f ew days l ater , Hensl ey was

spot t ed by one of hi s nei ghbors j umpi ng over a f ence that

sur r ounded an empt y l ot t hat st ood opposi t e hi s home at 198 Byr on

St r eet . The nei ghbor repor t ed t hi s t o Nancy. Hensl ey t ol d a

f r i end t hat he had been at t empt i ng t o see hi s chi l dr en and t hat

Nancy had seen hi m and now she woul d t r y t o t ake out another

r est r ai ni ng or der agai nst hi m.

A l i t t l e over a week l at er , on J anuar y 31, Hensl ey

r epor t ed at 6: 30 a. m. t o hi s j ob at t he Bost on t r anspor t at i on

depar t ment . Ar ound 8: 00 a. m. , Hensl ey i nf ormed hi s super vi sor t hat

he was not " f eel i ng r i ght " and asked i f he coul d use some vacat i on

t i me t o head home. Hensl ey t hen went t o hi s si st er ' s house where

he st ayed br i ef l y bef or e pr oceedi ng t o 198 Byron St r eet . Hensl ey

par ked hi s vehi cl e ar ound t he cor ner ( and out of vi ew) f r om t he

house. He was next seen l eavi ng t he house around 11: 45 a. m. He

l ef t i n Nancy' s Bui ck LeSabr e aut omobi l e.

That af t er noon Hensl ey' s ol dest daughter r et urned f r om

school . The daughter , upon headi ng down t o t he basement t o get

somethi ng t o dr i nk, f ound her mot her ' s dead body. Nancy' s body was

under her bedr oomcomf or t er ; a bl ue neckt i e was t i ed t i ght l y ar ound

her neck. She had bl ood on her f ace and hands, and her l ef t eye

was swol l en. Nancy was wear i ng one sock and t he ot her was i n t he

-4-


5/28

ki t chen wi t h what appear ed t o be a bl oodst ai n. There was no si gn

of f or ced ent r y. Hensl ey' s daught er cal l ed 911.

Meanwhi l e, Hensl ey dr ove Nancy' s car t o a ski r esort i n

New Hampshi r e. Hensl ey par ked t he car and r an a dryer vent hose

f r om t he exhaust pi pe i nt o t he car i n an at t empt t o asphyxi at e

hi msel f . He was t hwar t ed when New Hampshi r e pol i ce of f i cer s and

emer gency per sonnel pul l ed Hensl ey f r om t he vehi cl e ar ound 9: 00

p. m. and car r i ed hi m t o a nearby hospi t al . New Hampshi r e st at e

pol i ce qui ckl y l ear ned t hat Hensl ey was t he suspect i n a homi ci de

back i n Massachuset t s. Hensl ey was hel d on an i nvol unt ary

emer gency hospi t al i zat i on based on hi s sui ci de at t empt , whi ch

accor di ng t o Hensl ey al so i ncl uded i ngest i ng a bot t l e of sl eepi ng

pi l l s.

At 1: 11 a. m. , New Hampshi r e st ate pol i ce quest i oned a

Mi r andi zed Hensl ey about Nancy' s deat h. He admi t t ed goi ng t o t he

house, expl ai ni ng that he want ed t o get t he Bui ck LeSabr e

aut omobi l e and ki l l hi msel f . When asked whether he went i nsi de t he

house, Hensl ey sai d "I t hi nk I di d. " Lat er i n t he i nt er vi ew he

changed hi s r esponse t o: "I don' t r emember , i t ' s al l a bl ur , I j ust

want t o di e. " Hensl ey al so cl ai med not t o r emember whether he saw

Nancy. He admi t t ed havi ng keys t o both t he house and t he

aut omobi l e. Ar ound 3: 30 a. m. , New Hampshi r e pol i ce l ear ned t hat a

war r ant had i ssued i n Massachuset t s f or Hensl ey' s ar r est . Hensl ey

was t hen t r anspor t ed t o j ai l .

-5-


6/28

B. The Trial and Conviction

Hensl ey was i ndi ct ed and t r i ed f or mur der i n t he f i r st

degr ee based on al t er nat i ve t heor i es of del i ber at e pr emedi t at i on

and ext r eme at r oci t y or cr uel t y. Al t hough Hensl ey di d not t ake t he

st and, hi s def ense was cl ear ; he cl ai med ment al i mpai r ment . I n

essence, def ense counsel at t empt ed t o show t hat Hensl ey was

i ncapabl e of f or mi ng t he ment al st at e r equi r ed f or f i r st degr ee

mur der under ei t her of t he char ged t heor i es. A var i et y of

wi t nesses test i f i ed on t hi s poi nt . Hensl ey' s si st er t est i f i ed t hat

Hensl ey had al ways been a wonder f ul man and a dot i ng and i nvol ved

f at her . Af t er he was ser ved wi t h t he i ni t i al abuse pr event i on

or der t hough, Hensl ey became a di f f er ent per son. Accor di ng t o

Hensl ey' s si st er , he "basi cal l y f el l apar t , " al t er nat i ng bet ween

bei ng depr essed, hyst er i cal , i ncoher ent , and despondent . Hensl ey' s

daught er pai nt ed a si mi l ar pi ct ur e, descr i bi ng her f at her as havi ng

a "nervous br eakdown" and not want i ng t o l i ve anymore. Hensl ey' s

super vi sor echoed si mi l ar sent i ment s. Hi s f r i ends t est i f i ed t hat

a bar el y f unct i oni ng Hensl ey " l ooked l i ke a zombi e. "

Test i f yi ng at t r i al , as a wi t ness f or t he st at e, was Dr .

Mark Fl omenbaum, t he chi ef medi cal exami ner i n Massachuset t s at t he

t i me. Dr . Fl omenbaum, who di d not per f orm Nancy' s aut opsy, was

cal l ed t o t ake t he st and because Dr . Wi l l i am Zane, t he medi cal

exami ner who had per f ormed t he aut opsy, was not avai l abl e. Dr .

Fl omenbaum, af t er speaki ng t o hi s cr edent i al s and expl ai ni ng t he

-6-


7/28

aut opsy pr ocess i n gener al , t ur ned t o Nancy' s aut opsy. He

expl ai ned t hat he had r evi ewed t he aut opsy r epor t , suppor t i ng

mater i al s, and photogr aphs. Dr . Fl omenbaum went on t o opi ne t hat

t he cause of Nancy' s deat h was " l i gat ur e st r angul at i on, " t he

mechani smbei ng "bl ood st ar vat i on t o t he br ai n. " He al so t est i f i ed

r egar di ng some of Dr . Zane' s f i ndi ngs, i ncl udi ng t he l engt h of t he

st r uggl e, whi ch was put at t wo t o t en mi nut es, and the nat ur e of

t he st r uggl e, e. g. , t he f act t hat i t appear ed t hat t he abr asi ons on

Nancy' s neck wer e caused by her t r yi ng t o pul l t he l i gat ur e of f

dur i ng st r angul at i on. The aut opsy r epor t i t sel f was not admi t t ed

i nt o evi dence; however , Dr . Fl omenbaum had t he r epor t wi t h hi m on

t he wi t ness st and t o r ef er t o as needed.

Fol l owi ng cl osi ng ar gument s, dur i ng whi ch def ense counsel

conceded t hat Hensl ey ki l l ed Nancy but emphasi zed t hat he coul d not

have f or med the ment al st at e requi r ed f or a f i r st degr ee mur der

convi ct i on, t he case went t o t he j ur y. On J ul y 14, 2002, Hensl ey

was f ound gui l t y of f i r st degr ee mur der under bot h t he t heor y of

del i ber at e pr emedi t at i on and ext r eme at r oci t y or cr uel t y. He was

sent enced t o l i f e i n pr i son.

C. The State Court Appeals

Hensl ey appeal ed hi s convi ct i on t o t he SJ C and f i l ed a

mot i on f or a new t r i al i n Massachuset t s Super i or Cour t based on

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel . Hi s mot i on was deni ed; he

appeal ed t hat as wel l . The SJ C consol i dat ed t he t wo appeal s and i t

-7-


8/28

i ssued a deci si on on Sept ember 15, 2009. I n i t , t he cour t r ej ect ed

Hensl ey' s myr i ad chal l enges, af f i r mi ng hi s convi ct i on and t he

deni al of t he mot i on f or a new t r i al . We need not r ecount al l of

Hensl ey' s cl ai ms, or t he SJ C' s concl usi ons, as onl y t wo ar e

r el evant t o t hi s appeal .

The f i r st was Hensl ey' s cl ai m t hat t he t r i al cour t

vi ol at ed hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o conf r ont at i on when i t

admi t t ed t he t est i mony of Dr . Fl omenbaum, who was not t he medi cal

exami ner who per f ormed Nancy' s aut opsy. The SJ C was not per suaded.

I t f ound t hat Dr . Fl omenbaum' s opi ni on as t o Nancy' s cause of deat h

was admi ss i bl e because t he doctor opi ned, as an expert , based on

i nf or mat i on pr oper l y and t ypi cal l y r el i ed on by exper t s, and was

subj ect t o cr ossexami nat i on. As f or Dr . Fl omenbaum' s t est i mony

r egar di ng Dr . Zane' s speci f i c f i ndi ngs cont ai ned i n t he aut opsy

r epor t ( on whi ch Dr . Fl omenbaumbased hi s cause- of - deat h opi ni on) ,

t he SJ C concl uded t hat "such t est i mony may not have been admi ss i bl e

at t hat poi nt i n t he t r i al " si nce Dr . Fl omenbaum was not t he one

who pr epared t he aut opsy repor t . However , any such er r or was

har ml ess, sai d t he SJ C, si nce t he cause of deat h was not cont est ed

at t r i al . And, accor di ng t o t he SJ C, t o t he ext ent t he t est i mony

was cont est ed at t r i al , such t est i mony went t o whether Hensl ey was

gui l t y under t he t heor y of ext r eme at r oci t y or cr uel t y, e. g. , t he

t est i mony rel at i ng t o t he nat ur e and ext ent of t he st r uggl e.

Ther ef or e, t he SJ C concl uded, because t her e was "mor e t han

-8-


9/28

suf f i ci ent evi dence" t o suppor t Hensl ey' s convi ct i on under t he

del i ber at e pr emedi t at i on t heor y, i t di d not need t o consi der

whet her any er r or i n admi t t i ng Dr . Fl omenbaum' s t est i mony af f ect ed

t he j ur y' s ver di ct under t he t heor y of ext r eme at r oci t y or cruel t y.

The second ar gument made by Hensl ey, r el evant t o t hi s

appeal , r el at ed t o t he per f or mance of hi s t r i al counsel . Hensl ey

cont ended t hat counsel ' s f ai l ur e t o pr esent exper t t est i mony and

medi cal r ecor ds per t i nent t o hi s ment al i mpai r ment , and i t s ef f ect

on hi s capaci t y, const i t ut ed i nef f ect i ve assi st ance.

The exper t Hensl ey was r ef er r i ng t o was Davi d Rosmar i n,

M. D. , a f or ensi c psychi at r i st whom Hensl ey' s counsel had r et ai ned

and consul t ed. Dr . Rosmar i n eval uated Hensl ey and was pr epared t o

t est i f y at t r i al ; however , def ense counsel never cal l ed hi m. I n

suppor t of hi s appeal s, Hensl ey had Dr . Rosmar i n pen a wr i t t en

r epor t of hi s f i ndi ngs. Hensl ey poi nt ed out t hat i n i t , Dr .

Rosmar i n had made some f avor abl e f i ndi ngs, namel y t hat ment al

i mpai r ment and di ssoci at i ve sympt oms pr ecl uded Hensl ey f r om

"f or m[ i ng] t he i nt ent t o ki l l or i nf l i ct gr i evous bodi l y har m. "

However , t he SJ C not ed that t he repor t was not al l advant ageous.

The r epor t al so cont ai ned damagi ng st at ement s about Hensl ey' s l evel

of cr i mi nal r esponsi bi l i t y, as wel l as a gr uesome descr i pt i on of

t he mur der , whi ch i ncl uded r ef erences t o Hensl ey bei ng angr y and

bl ami ng Nancy f or hi s sui ci dal desi gns. Mor eover , t he SJ C f ound i t

si gni f i cant t hat t hi s was not a case i n whi ch def ense counsel had

-9-


10/28

f ai l ed t o i nvest i gat e a ment al i mpai r ment def ense. Rat her , counsel

had t hor oughl y i nvest i gat ed ( and ul t i mat el y pr esent ed) a ment al

i mpai r ment def ense, but counsel made t he st r at egi c deci si on not t o

make Dr . Rosmar i n par t of t hat def ense. Gi ven t he damagi ng

i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t he r epor t , t he f act t hat cal l i ng Dr .

Rosmar i n woul d have opened t he door f or t he Commonweal t h' s exper t

t o t est i f y, and t he ampl e evi dence of Hensl ey' s sever e depr essi on

of f er ed by f ami l y and f r i ends, t he SJ C concl uded that counsel was

not i nef f ect i ve f or f ai l i ng t o pr esent Dr . Rosmar i n' s exper t

t est i mony.

For si mi l ar r easons, t he SJ C was not per suaded t hat

counsel had bobbl ed thi ngs by not pr esent i ng medi cal r ecor d

evi dence of Hensl ey' s hi st or y of depr essi on, i n par t i cul ar , r ecor ds

f r om t he East Bost on Nei ghborhood Heal t h Cent er where Hensl ey

t r eat ed f r om1999 t o 2002. Whi l e t he r ecor ds woul d have shown some

hi st or y of anxi et y and depr essi on, t he SJ C f ound t hat t he r ecor ds

may have br ought some "unsympathet i c f act s" t o l i ght , such as

Hensl ey' s l acki ng depr essi ve sympt oms and ref usi ng counsel i ng.

Agai n, gi ven the abundance of evi dence pr esent ed by f ami l y and

f r i ends as t o Hensl ey' s ment al st at e, t he SJ C saw no er r or i n

counsel ' s deci si on not t o i nt r oduce t hese medi cal r ecor ds. As t he

SJ C sai d, Dr . Rosmar i n and t he medi cal r ecor ds " may wel l have

adver sel y af f ect ed t he t r i al st r at egy, whi ch was t o por t r ay Hensl ey

as a sui ci dal , yet sympat het i c f ami l y man. "

-10-


11/28

D. Habeas Petition

Ref usi ng t o be put of f , Hensl ey f i l ed a habeas corpus

pet i t i on i n t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t , r enewi ng j ust t he ar gument s

chr oni cl ed above, i . e. , t hat hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o

conf r ont at i on was vi ol ated when Dr . Fl omenbaum' s t est i mony was

admi t t ed, and hi s at t or ney' s f ai l ur e t o i nt r oduce cer t ai n ment al

heal t h r el at ed evi dence t r ansgressed hi s Si xth Amendment r i ght t o

ef f ect i ve counsel . The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he pet i t i on,

concl udi ng t hat t he SJ C' s deci si on di d not r un af oul of t he

appl i cabl e f eder al l aw. Hensl ey now appeal s.

II. DISCUSSION

A di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o deny habeas r el i ef

engenders de novo r evi ew. Morgan v. Di ckhaut , 677 F. 3d 39, 46

( 1st Ci r . 2012) . We, l i ke t he di st r i ct cour t , ar e gui ded by t he

Ant i t er r or i sm and Ef f ect i ve Deat h Penal t y Act of 1996 ( AEDPA) , 28

U. S. C. 2254. I n t he case of cl ai ms adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s i n

st at e cour t , AEDPA cont empl at es j ust t wo scenar i os t hat war r ant a

f eder al cour t gr ant i ng habeas r el i ef . I d. 2254( d) ( 1) - ( 2) .

For one, a f eder al cour t may gr ant habeas r el i ef i f t he

st at e cour t adj udi cat i on "r esul t ed i n a deci si on t hat was cont r ar y

t o, or i nvol ved an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of , cl ear l y est abl i shed

Federal l aw, as determi ned by t he Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed

St at es. " I d. 2254( d) ( 1) . Thi s means we l ook t o t he Supr eme

Cour t ' s hol di ngs, as opposed t o di ct a, at t he t i me t he stat e cour t

-11-


12/28

r ender ed i t s deci si on, Gonzl ez- Fuent es v. Mol i na, 607 F. 3d 864,

876 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) , whi l e empl oyi ng t he f ol l owi ng cr i t er i a.

An adj udi cat i on wi l l be cont r ar y t o cl ear l y est abl i shed

l aw i f t he st at e cour t "' appl i es a r ul e t hat cont r adi ct s t he

gover ni ng l aw set f or t h' by t he Supr eme Cour t or ' conf r ont s a set

of f act s t hat ar e mat er i al l y i ndi st i ngui shabl e f r om a deci si on of

[ t he Supr eme Cour t ] and never t hel ess ar r i ves at a r esul t di f f er ent

f r om [ i t s] pr ecedent . ' " Gomes v. Br ady, 564 F. 3d 532, 537 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Wi l l i ams v. Tayl or ,

529 U. S. 362, 405- 06 ( 2000) ) . On t he ot her hand, a st at e cour t

adj udi cat i on const i t ut es an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on "i f t he st at e

cour t i dent i f i es t he cor r ect gover ni ng l egal pr i nci pl e f r om t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s t hen- cur r ent deci si ons but unr easonabl y appl i es

t hat pr i nci pl e t o t he f act s of t he pr i soner ' s case. " Abr ant e v.

St . Amand, 595 F. 3d 11, 15 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) . An " 'unreasonable appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw i s

di f f er ent f r om an incorrect appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw, ' " and a

st at e cour t i s af f or ded def er ence and l at i t ude. Har r i ngt on v.

Ri cht er , 131 S. Ct . 770, 785 ( 2011) ( quot i ng Wi l l i ams, 529 U. S. at

410) .

The second scenar i o j ust i f yi ng habeas r el i ef i s i f t he

st at e cour t adj udi cat i on l ed t o "a deci si on t hat was based on an

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 e cour t pr oceedi ng. " 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) ( 2) .

-12-


13/28

Though t hi s means t hat a f eder al cour t wi l l be t aki ng a cl oser l ook

at a st at e cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act , t he f undament al pr i nci pl e of

def er ence t o t hose f i ndi ngs st i l l appl i es. See J ohn v. Russo, 561

F. 3d 88, 92 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

A "st at e cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat a cl ai m l acks mer i t

pr ecl udes f eder al habeas r el i ef so l ong as f ai r mi nded j ur i st s coul d

di sagr ee on t he cor r ect ness of t he st at e cour t ' s deci si on. "

Har r i ngt on, 131 S. Ct . at 786 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The conf i nes of our r evi ew cl ear , we proceed t o Hensl ey' s

cl ai ms.

A. Admission of Dr. Flomenbaum's Testimony

Hensl ey sol el y cont ends t hat t he SJ C' s deci si on as t o t he

admi ss i on of Dr . Fl omenbaum' s t est i mony was cont r ary t o governi ng

Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent , see 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) ( 1) , speci f i cal l y

Mel endez- Di az v. Massachuset t s, 557 U. S. 305 ( 2009) . I n Mel endez-

Di az, whi ch was deci ded a f ew mont hs bef ore t he SJ C i ssued i t s

deci si on i n t hi s mat t er , t he Supr eme Cour t consi der ed whet her a

Massachuset t s t r i al cour t ' s admi ssi on i nt o evi dence of cer t i f i cat es

of anal ysi s, whi ch r epor t ed t he r esul t s of f or ensi c anal ysi s done

on sei zed dr ugs, vi ol at ed t he def endant ' s const i t ut i onal r i ght s.

See 557 U. S. at 307. As phr ased by t he Cour t , t he oper at i ve

quest i on was whet her t he cer t i f i cat es wer e " ' t est i moni al , '

r ender i ng t he af f i ant ' wi t nesses' subj ect t o t he def endant ' s r i ght

of conf r ont at i on under t he Si xth Amendment . " I d.

-13-


14/28

The cour t concl uded t hat t hey wer e, f i ndi ng t hat al t hough

under Massachuset t s l aw t he moni ker f or t he di sput ed document s was

"cer t i f i cat es, " t he so- cal l ed cer t i f i cat es wer e "qui t e pl ai nl y

af f i davi t s. " I d. at 310. Af f i davi t s, t he cour t expl ai ned, wer e

squar el y wi t hi n t he cor e cl ass of t est i moni al st at ement s, whi ch had

been pr evi ousl y chr oni cl ed i n Cr awf or d v. Washi ngt on, 541 U. S. 36,

51- 52 ( 2004) . 1 See Mel endez- Di az, 557 U. S. at 309- 10; see al so

Uni t ed St ates v. Cameron, 699 F. 3d 621, 640 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( expl ai ni ng t hat t he Supr eme Cour t r ul ed t hat admi t t i ng t he

di sput ed cer t i f i cat es "vi ol at ed t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause because

t hey f el l i nt o t he ' cor e cl ass of t est i moni al st at ement s'

i dent i f i ed i n Cr awf or d" ( quot i ng Mel endez- Di az, 557 U. S. at 310) ) ,

cer t . deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 1845 ( 2013) . Si gni f i cant l y, t he

cer t i f i cat es of anal ysi s wer e " ' made under ci r cumst ances whi ch

woul d l ead an obj ect i ve wi t ness r easonabl y to bel i eve t hat t he

st at ement woul d be avai l abl e f or use at a l at er t r i al , ' " and, under

Massachuset t s l aw, " t he sole purpose" of t he cer t i f i cat es was t o

pr ovi de evi dence about t he par t i cul ar s ( composi t i on, quant i t y) of

t he anal yzed subst ance. Mel endez- Di az, 557 U. S. at 311 ( quot i ng

Cr awf or d, 541 U. S. at 52) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Thus, t he Cour t concl uded t hat t he def endant , pur suant t o t he

pr ot ect i ons af f or ded by t he Si xth Amendment , was ent i t l ed t o be

1 Ot her s i ncl uded: pr i or t est i mony not subj ect t o cr ossexami nat i on, deposi t i ons, and conf essi ons.

-14-


15/28

conf r ont ed at t r i al wi t h t he anal yst s who had per f or med t he

f or ensi c t est i ng, absent t hei r unavai l abi l i t y and a pr i or cross-

exami nat i on oppor t uni t y. I d.

Accor di ng t o Hensl ey, Mel endez- Di az "cl ear l y est abl i shed"

t hat f or ensi c document s, such as aut opsy r epor t s, pr epar ed under

ci r cumst ances t hat woul d l ead an obj ect i ve wi t ness t o bel i eve t he

st at ement woul d be avai l abl e f or use at a l at er t r i al , ar e

t est i moni al and not admi ssi bl e absent conf r ont at i on. Si nce Dr .

Zane, t he aut hor of Nancy' s aut opsy repor t , di d not t est i f y,

Hensl ey cl ai ms t hat t he aut opsy r epor t was non- admi ssi bl e

t est i moni al hear say. Fromt hi s, Hensl ey ext r apol at es that i t was

er r or f or Dr . Fl omenbaum t o r eci t e f act s cont ai ned i n t he aut opsy

r epor t and t o of f er opi ni ons based on t he repor t . 2 Hensl ey f ur t her

cl ai ms t hat t he cour t ' s admi ssi on of t he t est i mony was not , as t he

SJ C f ound, har ml ess er r or .

Unf or t unat el y f or Hensl ey, hi s Conf r ont at i on Cl ause cl ai m

f ai l s f r om i t s st ar t i ng pr esumpt i on. The "t hr eshol d quest i on" i n

t hese t ypes of cl ai ms " i s whet her t he chal l enged st at ement i s

t est i moni al . " Uni t ed St at es v. Fi guer oa- Car t agena, 612 F. 3d 69, 85

( 1st Ci r . 2010) . "I f i t i s not , t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause ' has no

appl i cat i on. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Whor t on v. Bockt i ng, 549 U. S. 406,

420 ( 2007) ) .

2 One opi ni on i s except ed. Hensl ey does not cont est on appealt hat Dr . Fl omenbaum' s opi ni on as t o the cause of deat h wasadmi ssi bl e.

-15-


16/28

Her e, cont r ar y t o t he posi t i on Hensl ey t akes on appeal ,

Mel endez- Di az di d not say one way or t he ot her whether aut opsy

r epor t s shoul d be consi der ed t est i moni al . I ndeed, t he onl y

al l usi on t o aut opsy r epor t s i n t he maj or i t y opi ni on i s i n a

f oot not e. Ther e, i n r esponse t o t he di ssent ' s suggest i on t hat t he

Conf r ont at i on Cl ause i s not desi gned t o det ect er r or s i n sci ent i f i c

t est s, and t hat ot her met hods such as a new t est mi ght bet t er serve

t hat pur pose, t he maj or i t y pr ovi ded aut opsi es as an exampl e of a

f or ensi c test t hat cannot be r epeat ed. See Mel endez- Di az, 557 U. S.

at 318 & n. 5; see al so i d. at 337 ( Kennedy, J . , di ssent i ng) . The

Cour t i n no way - expl i ci t l y or i mpl i ci t l y - i ndi cat ed t hat aut opsy

r epor t s ar e t est i moni al i n nat ur e. I t si mpl y used aut opsi es as an

exampl e of a f or ensi c t est wher e do- over s are not possi bl e.

As t he Supr eme Cour t st ated, Mel endez- Di az "i nvol ves

l i t t l e mor e than t he appl i cat i on of " t he Cr awf or d v. Washi ngt on

hol di ng. 3 Mel endez- Di az, 557 U. S. at 329. And not abl y, al t hough

3 Gi ven t hi s char act er i zat i on, i t i s wor t h ment i oni ng t hatpost - Cr awf or d and pr e- Mel endez- Di az, t he wei ght of t he case l awappear s t o be agai nst Hensl ey. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. De LaCr uz, 514 F. 3d 121, 133 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( hol di ng t hat an aut opsyr epor t i s a non- t est i moni al busi ness r ecor d) ; Uni t ed St at es v.Fel i z, 467 F. 3d 227, 236 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ( same) . Thus, cour t sconsi st ent l y r ej ect ed Cr awf or d- based habeas pet i t i ons t hat r el i edupon t he supposedl y err oneous admi ss i on of aut opsy r eport s. See

Mi t chel l v. Kel l y, 520 F. App' x 329, 331 ( 6t h Ci r . 2013) ( percur i am) ( hol di ng t hat t he st at e cour t di d not unr easonabl y appl yCr awf or d "gi ven t he l ack of Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent est abl i shi ngt hat an aut opsy r epor t i s t est i moni al ") , cer t . deni ed, 134 S. Ct .312 ( 2013) ; Vega v. Wal sh, 669 F. 3d 123, 128 ( 2d Ci r . 2012) ( percur i am) ( hol di ng t hat t he st at e cour t ' s deci si on was not cont r ar yt o Cr awf or d as r easonabl e j ur i st s coul d di sagr ee as t o whet her

-16-


17/28

Cr awf or d descr i bed a cor e cl ass of t est i moni al st at ement s ( whi ch

di d not i ncl ude aut opsy r epor t s) , i t was har dl y def i ni t i ve,

" l eav[ i ng] f or anot her day any ef f or t t o spel l out a compr ehensi ve

def i ni t i on of ' t est i moni al . ' " Cr awf or d, 541 U. S. at 68. The

Supr eme Cour t cont i nued t aki ng t hi s appr oach, decl i ni ng t o "pr oduce

an exhaust i ve cl assi f i cat i on of al l concei vabl e st at ement s . . . as

ei t her t est i moni al or nont est i moni al " i n Davi s v. Washi ngt on, 547

U. S. 813, 822 ( 2006) . I n ot her wor ds, t hi ngs ar e not as cl ear cut

as Hensl ey woul d make t hem out t o be.

Fur t her evi denci ng t he unset t l ed nat ur e of t he i ssue at

hand i s how cour t s have t r eated aut opsy r epor t s f ol l owi ng Mel endez-

Di az. Most not abl y, t hi s cour t i n Nar di v. Pepe st at ed t hat "an

aut opsy repor t can be di st i ngui shed f r om, or assi mi l at ed t o, t he

sworn document s i n Mel endez- Di az. " 662 F. 3d 107, 111 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) . Ref er r i ng t o whet her aut opsy r epor t s ar e cover ed by t he

Conf r ont at i on Cl ause, we cont i nued: "no one can be cer t ai n j ust

what t he Supr eme Cour t woul d say about t hat i ssue today. "4 I d. ;

aut opsy r epor t s came wi t hi n Cr awf or d' s f or mul at i ons) ; McNei ece v.Lat t i mor e, 501 F. App' x 634, 636 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) ( hol di ng t hatbecause Cr awf or d di d not cl ear l y est abl i sh t hat aut opsy repor t s ar et est i moni al , t he st at e cour t ' s deci si on t hat por t i ons of an aut opsyr epor t were admi ss i bl e was not cont r ary t o Supr eme Cour tpr ecedent ) , cer t . deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 2357 ( 2013) .

4 I n Nardi , we added t hat even were t he Supr eme Cour t t ocl assi f y aut opsy r epor t s as t est i moni al , i t i s not cl ear whet her"t he admi ssi bi l i t y of i n- cour t exper t t est i mony that r el i ed i n somemeasur e on such a r epor t woul d be af f ect ed. " 662 F. 3d at 112. Wenot ed t he wi t ness' s abi l i t y t o be cr ossexami ned and t hel ongst andi ng t r adi t i on of al l owi ng exper t s t o r el y on hear say wher e

-17-


18/28

see al so Uni t ed St at es v. McGhee, 627 F. 3d 454, 459 (1st Ci r . 2010)

( not i ng t hat t he Mel endez- Di az Cour t was " shar pl y di vi ded" and t hat

t he Cour t ' s "new sl ant on t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause i s l i kel y t o be

cont est ed t er r i t or y f or some year s" ) , vacat ed on r eh' g on ot her

gr ounds, 651 F. 3d 153 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

When other cour t s, post Mel endez- Di az, have been

conf r ont ed wi t h t he quest i on of whet her aut opsy r epor t s are

t est i moni al or not , di spar i t y of t r eat ment has r ei gned. On t he one

hand, some cour t s have concl uded t hat aut opsy r eport s are not

t est i moni al . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. J ames, 712 F. 3d 79, 99

( 2d Ci r . 2013) ( deci di ng t hat t he aut opsy r epor t at i ssue "was not

t est i moni al because i t was not pr epar ed pr i mar i l y to cr eat e a

r ecor d f or use at a cr i mi nal t r i al " ) , cer t . deni ed, 2014 WL 2178370

( May 27, 2014) ; Peopl e v. Dungo, 286 P. 3d 442, 450 ( Cal . 2012)

( f i ndi ng t hat even t hough Cal i f or ni a' s st at ut or y scheme r equi r ed

t he r epor t i ng of suspi ci ous aut opsy f i ndi ngs t o l aw enf or cement , an

aut opsy serves sever al pur poses and t he "aut opsy report i t sel f was

si mpl y an of f i ci al expl anat i on of an unusual deat h, and such

of f i ci al r ecor ds ar e or di nar i l y not t est i moni al ") ; Banmah v. St at e,

87 So. 3d 101, 103 ( Fl a. Di st . Ct . App. 2012) ( concl udi ng t hat

aut opsy r eport s are not t est i moni al because t hey are made pur suant

t o a st at ut or y dut y and not , i n al l i nst ances, used i n

doi ng so i s common pr act i ce. I d. Gi ven our deter mi nat i on t odayt hough, t her e i s no need f or us t o wade i nt o t hi s t hi cket .

-18-


19/28

pr osecut i ons) ; Peopl e v. Cor t ez, 931 N. E. 2d 751, 756 ( I l l . App. Ct .

2010) ( f i ndi ng t hat Mel endez- Di az di d not upset t he cour t ' s pr i or

hol di ngs t hat aut opsy r epor t s are busi ness r ecor ds wi t hout Cr awf or d

i mpl i cat i ons).

On t he f l i p si de, cour t s have come down t he ot her way,

f i ndi ng aut opsy r epor t s t est i moni al and af f or di ng t hem t he

pr ot ect i on of t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es

v. I gnasi ak, 667 F. 3d 1217, 1231 ( 11t h Ci r . 2012) ( hol di ng t hat ,

appl yi ng t he l ogi c of Cr awf or d, Mel endez- Di az, and Bul l comi ng, t he

aut opsy r epor t s at i ssue wer e t est i moni al ) ; Commonweal t h v. Avi l a,

912 N. E. 2d 1014, 1029, 1030 n. 20 ( Mass. 2009) ( f i ndi ng t hat t he

medi cal exami ner ' s aut opsy r epor t st at ement s wer e t est i moni al ) ;

Cuest a- Rodr i guez v. St at e, 241 P. 3d 214, 228 ( Okl a. Cr i m. App.

2010) ( hol di ng t hat i n l i ght of Okl ahoma' s st at ut or y scheme

r el at i ve t o t he medi cal exami ner ' s dut y i n t he case of a suspi ci ous

deat h, an aut opsy r epor t i n such cases woul d be t est i moni al ) ; Wood

v. St at e, 299 S. W. 3d 200, 209- 10 ( Tex. Ct . App. 2009) ( hol di ng t hat

al t hough not al l aut opsy r epor t s are test i moni al , gi ven t he suspect

nat ur e of t he vi ct i m' s deat h, t he subj ect aut opsy repor t was

t est i moni al ) .

Of cour se, f or habeas pur poses, t he oper at i ve t i me per i od

f or assessi ng whet her or not a r ul e i s cl ear l y est abl i shed i s at

t he t i me t he st at e cour t r ender s i t s j udgment , Gr eene v. Fi sher ,

132 S. Ct . 38, 44 ( 2011) . However , hi ghl i ght i ng l at er or pr esent

-19-


20/28

uncer t ai nt y of t he l aw can hel p us gauge how unset t l ed t he l aw was

at t he t i me t he oper at i ve st at e cour t deci si on was i ssued. See,

e. g. , Nar di , 662 F. 3d at 112 ( st at i ng t hat "we st r ess t he pr esent

uncer t ai nt y of t he l aw onl y t o emphasi ze t hat i t was even mor e

unset t l ed at t he t i me of Cr awf or d j ust how f ar t hat deci si on woul d

be ext ended") . As t he above cases make cl ear , even af t er Mel endez-

Di az had been ar ound a l i t t l e l onger , i t was st i l l uncer t ai n wher e

aut opsy r epor t s st ood. Thi s st r ongl y under cut s Hensl ey' s cl ai m

t hat t he t est i moni al nat ur e of aut opsy repor t s was cl ear l y

est abl i shed.

I n an ef f or t t o get ar ound t hi s f act , Hensl ey ur ges us

away f r omt he narr ow i ssue of whether t he Supr eme Cour t had, at t he

t i me of t he SJ C deci si on, det er mi ned t hat aut opsy repor t s i n

par t i cul ar ar e t est i moni al and asks us i nst ead t o f ocus on t he

general parameters set by Mel endez- Di az. He cl ai ms Mel endez- Di az

cl ear l y est abl i shed t hat a f or ensi c document i s t est i moni al i f i t

was pr epared under ci r cumst ances t hat woul d l ead an obj ect i ve

wi t ness t o bel i eve t hat i t woul d be avai l abl e f or use at a l at er

t r i al . Because t he Massachuset t s st at ut or y scheme r equi r es ( among

ot her t hi ngs) t hat i f a medi cal exami ner suspect s f oul pl ay, he or

she al er t t he di st r i ct at t or ney and make avai l abl e any recor ds f r om

t he i nvest i gat i on, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 38, 7, Hensl ey cl ai ms

t hat an obj ect i ve wi t ness woul d bel i eve t hat an aut opsy repor t

mi ght be used i n l at er cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs.

-20-


21/28

Even assumi ng Hensl ey has adequatel y charact er i zed what

Mel endez- Di az says, hi s ar gument mi sses t he mark. He i s cor r ect

t hat AEDPA does not r equi r e a "Supr eme Cour t case di r ect l y on al l

f our s, " and i nst ead i t i s suf f i ci ent i f t he Cour t ' s "gener al

pr i nci pl es can be di scer ned. " Whi t e v. Copl an, 399 F. 3d 18, 25

( 1st Ci r . 2005) . However , i t i s al so t r ue t hat t he "cont r ar y t o"

habeas st andar d i s a di f f i cul t one t o meet ; f eder al habeas r el i ef

f unct i ons as a "guar d agai nst ext r eme mal f unct i ons i n t he st at e

cr i mi nal j ust i ce systems, and not as a means of er r or cor r ect i on. "

Gr eene, 132 S. Ct . at 43 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The

st at e cour t deci si on "must be subst ant i al l y di f f er ent f r om t he

r el evant pr ecedent of [ t he Supr eme] Cour t . " Wi l l i ams, 529 U. S. at

405.

Taken i n t hi s l i ght , we cannot see how t he SJ C' s

r ej ect i on of Hensl ey' s Conf r ont at i on Cl ause ar gument was cont r ar y

t o governi ng Supreme Cour t precedent . As we hashed out above, at

t he t i me t he SJ C i ssued i t s deci si on ( and i ndeed wel l af t er t hat ) ,

i t was not set t l ed t hat aut opsy r epor t s f el l wi t hi n t he cor e cl ass

of t est i moni al document s enumer at ed i n Cr awf or d, or wi t hi n t he

parameters set by Mel endez- Di az. Gi ven t hat t he Supreme Cour t had

gi ven no cl ear answer s r el at i ve t o t hi s i ssue, i t cannot be sai d

-21-


22/28

t hat t he SJ C' s deci si on was cont r ar y t o cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw. 5

Hensl ey' s Conf r ont at i on Cl ause ent r eat y f ai l s.

B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The ot her hal f of Hensl ey' s appeal r el at es t o hi s Si xt h

Amendment r i ght t o ef f ect i ve r epr esent at i on. To r emi nd t he r eader ,

Hensl ey f aul t s hi s counsel f or not pr esent i ng Davi d Rosmar i n, M. D.

( t he f or ensi c psychi at r y exper t r et ai ned by t he def ense) as a

wi t ness, and f or not i nt r oduci ng i nt o evi dence medi cal r ecor ds

per t i nent t o hi s ment al i mpai r ment , and i t s ef f ect on hi s capaci t y.

Hensl ey cl ai ms t hat t he SJ C' s r ebuke of hi s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance

of counsel cl ai m was an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of cl ear l y

est abl i shed f eder al l aw, see 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) ( 1) , as wel l as an

unr easonabl e det er mi nat i on of t he f act s gi ven t he evi dence

pr esent ed at t r i al , see i d. 2254( d) ( 2) . We can make qui ck wor k

of t he second par t of hi s cont ent i on and so begi n t her e.

i. Section 2254(d)(2) Claim

Hensl ey ar gues t hat t he SJ C' s det er mi nat i on t hat counsel

was not def i ci ent f or f ai l i ng t o i nt r oduce hi s medi cal r ecor ds was

based i n par t on cl ear f act ual er r or , whi ch r esul t ed i n an

unr easonabl e det er mi nat i on of t he f act s. See i d. I n par t i cul ar ,

Hensl ey hi ghl i ght s some of t he cour t ' s f act ual f i ndi ngs about

5 I n l i ght of our det er mi nat i on, t her e i s no need t o get i nt owhet her i t was er r or f or Dr . Fl omenbaumt o t est i f y about , and of f eropi ni ons based on, Nancy' s aut opsy r epor t . Si mi l ar l y, del vi ng i nt ot he i mpact of t he admi ssi on of t he r epor t on Hensl ey' s case, i . e. ,whet her i t was har ml ess err or , wi l l not be r equi r ed.

-22-


23/28

por t i ons of hi s medi cal r ecor ds, whi ch t he cour t per cei ved coul d

have had a negat i ve i mpact on t he j ur y, t hus val i dat i ng counsel ' s

deci si on not t o i nt r oduce t he r ecor ds.

The probl em i s t hat al t hough Hensl ey f r ames t hi s as a

f act - based habeas chal l enge, a r evi ew of hi s br i ef r eveal s t hat he

does not di sput e t he accur acy of any of t he SJ C' s f act ual

det er mi nat i ons. Rat her , Hensl ey qui bbl es wi t h t he emphasi s t he

cour t put on cer t ai n f act s or t he cont ext i n whi ch t he cour t pl aced

t he f act s. For exampl e, Hensl ey compl ai ns t hat t he SJ C' s f i ndi ng

t hat "Hensl ey was gr eat l y concer ned t hat hi s depr essi on medi cat i on

was i mpai r i ng hi s sexual per f or mance" bor e no r el evance. Hensl ey

al so f aul t s t he di st r i ct cour t f or not ment i oni ng - when i t f ound

t hat Hensl ey "had showed no symptoms of depress i on dur i ng t wo

separ at e vi si t s" - t hat t hose vi si t s occur r ed back i n 1999. I n

ot her wor ds, Hensl ey does not even al l ege that t he cour t ' s f act ual

f i ndi ngs wer e er r oneous, l et al one f ur ni sh us wi t h evi dent i ar y

suppor t t o over come t he " f undament al pr i nci pl e of def er ence t o

st at e cour t f i ndi ngs" t hat 2254( d) ( 2) cal l s f or . J ohn, 561 F. 3d

at 92 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Ther e i s no mor e t o be

sai d. Hensl ey' s 2254( d) ( 2) chal l enge f ai l s.

ii. Section 2254(d)(1) Claim

The r est of Hensl ey' s i nef f ect i ve ass i st ance habeas cl ai m

goes l i ke so. Accor di ng t o Hensl ey, t he SJ C' s det er mi nat i on t hat

hi s Si xth Amendment r i ght was not abr i dged - ei t her by counsel ' s

-23-


24/28

f ai l ur e t o cal l Dr . Rosmar i n or i nt r oduce t he medi cal r ecor ds -

was an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of St r i ckl and v. Washi ngt on, 466

U. S. 668 ( 1984) . 6 See 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) ( 1) .

For a def endant t o be ent i t l ed t o r ever sal of a

convi ct i on pur suant t o St r i ckl and, he must make a t wo par t showi ng.

466 U. S. at 687. The f i r st pi ece i s t hat def ense counsel ' s

per f or mance was def i ci ent , t hat i s, t he at t or ney "made er r or s so

ser i ous t hat counsel was not f unct i oni ng as t he ' counsel '

guarant eed t he def endant by t he Si xt h Amendment . " I d. On t op of

a f l awed per f or mance, t her e must al so be pr ej udi ce t o t he def ense. 7

I d. I t must be "r easonabl y l i kel y" t hat t he r esul t of t he cr i mi nal

pr oceedi ng woul d have been di f f er ent , i d. at 696, and t hat

l i kel i hood "must be subst ant i al , not j ust concei vabl e. "

Har r i ngt on, 131 S. Ct . at 792. The def endant ' s bur den i s a heavy

one, Tur ner v. Uni t ed St at es, 699 F. 3d 578, 584 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ,

and an i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel showi ng i s not an easy one

6 The SJ C act ual l y consi der ed Hensl ey' s i nef f ect i ve assi st anceof counsel cl ai m under Commonweal t h v. Wi l l i ams, whi ch, l i keSt r i ckl and, pl aces a dual f ocus on counsel ' s per f or mance anddef endant ' s pr ej udi ce. See 900 N. E. 2d 871, 874 ( Mass. 2009)( ci t i ng Commonweal t h v. Wr i ght , 584 N. E. 2d. 621, 624 ( Mass. 1992) ) .The Massachuset t s st andar d empl oyed by t he SJ C i s at l east as

pr ot ect i ve of def endant s as t he f eder al st andar d. See Yeboah- Sef ahv. Fi cco, 556 F. 3d 53, 70 n. 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Hensl ey does notcl ai m ot her wi se.

7 Gi ven t hat nei t her t he SJ C nor t he di st r i ct cour t saw anypr obl em wi t h how counsel compor t ed hi msel f , t hey di d not consi dert he pr ej udi ce pr ong.

-24-


25/28


26/28

was "angr y" and "af r ai d I mi ght beat [ Nancy] up. " Hensl ey sai d he

st ar t ed "choki ng her , " st at i ng " [ y]ou dest r oyed me and my f ami l y. "

"The deci si on whet her t o cal l a par t i cul ar wi t ness i s

al most al ways st r at egi c, r equi r i ng a bal anci ng of t he benef i t s and

r i sks of t he ant i ci pat ed t est i mony. " Hor t on v. Al l en, 370 F. 3d 75,

86 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . Her e, i n addi t i on t o keepi ng out some

pot ent i al l y nocuous t est i mony, t r i al counsel ' s deci si on not t o cal l

Dr . Rosmar i n meant t hat t he st at e coul d not pr esent t he rebut t al

exper t wi t ness t hat i t had r et ai ned. I t i s on Hensl ey t o "over come

t he pr esumpt i on t hat , under t he ci r cumst ances, t he chal l enged

act i on mi ght be consi der ed sound t r i al st r at egy. " St r i ckl and, 466

U. S. at 689 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I t i s pl ai n t hat

he has not done t hat here.

We r each t he same concl usi on as t o Hensl ey' s East Bost on

Nei ghborhood Heal t h Cent er medi cal r ecor ds. As wi t h Dr . Rosmar i n' s

t est i mony, i t i s possi bl e the medi cal r ecor ds woul d have done mor e

har m t han good t o Hensl ey' s case. The r ecor ds di d evi dence

Hensl ey' s hi st or y of depr essi on and anxi et y. However , as t he SJ C

poi nt ed out , a j ur y may not have l ooked f avor abl y on ot her por t i ons

of t he r ecor ds, e. g. , many not at i ons r egar di ng Hensl ey' s concer n

wi t h how hi s ant i - anxi et y medi cat i on was af f ect i ng hi s sexual

per f or mance ( al bei t wi t h a coupl e of ment i ons of how t hi s was

i mpact i ng hi s mar r i age) , a not at i on about Hensl ey' s l ack of

-26-


27/28

depr essi ve sympt oms, as wel l as one regar di ng a ref usal t o go t o

counsel i ng.

To prevai l under St r i ckl and, counsel ' s choi ce must have

been "so patent l y unr easonabl e t hat no competent at t orney woul d

have made i t . " Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 675 F. 3d 48, 56 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Gi ven t he possi bl e

negat i ve i mpact of t he medi cal r ecor ds, and t he f act t hat ot her

evi dence ( f ami l y and f r i end t est i mony) demonst r at ed Hensl ey' s

depr essi on, we f i nd i t har d t o see how def ense counsel ' s deci si on

not t o i nt r oduce t he East Bost on Nei ghborhood Heal t h Cent er medi cal

r ecor ds was patent l y unr easonabl e.

To sum t hi ngs up, t he SJ C r easonabl y det er mi ned t hat

def ense counsel ' s deci si on not t o cal l Dr . Rosmar i n, or pr esent t he

subj ect medi cal r ecor ds, was sound. Hensl ey' s at t or ney cl ear l y

i nvest i gated and pur sued a ment al i ncapaci t y def ense. Counsel

r et ai ned Dr . Rosmar i n and had hi m eval uat e Hensl ey t hr ee t i mes

pr i or to t r i al . Counsel obt ai ned Hensl ey' s East Bost on

Nei ghborhood Heal t h Cent er medi cal r ecor ds and pr ovi ded t hese

r ecor ds t o Dr . Rosmar i n. Counsel t hen r easonabl y el ect ed t o t r y

and est abl i sh Hensl ey' s ment al i mpai r ment t hr ough test i mony f r om

hi s f r i ends and f ami l y, choosi ng not t o i nt r oduce exper t t est i mony

f r om a f or ensi c psychi at r i st or t he medi cal r ecor ds per t ai ni ng t o

Hensl ey' s ment al heal t h t r eat ment . Counsel obt ai ned a ment al

i mpai r ment i nst r uct i on and argued i n summat i on t hat Hensl ey' s

-27-


28/28

i mpai r ment made murder i n t he second degr ee the more appropr i at e

choi ce.

Rel i ef pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) ( 1) i s not cal l ed

f or when t hi s cour t mi ght mer el y have a di f f er i ng opi ni on as t o how

t hi ngs shoul d have t ur ned out . See Sanna v. Di paol o, 265 F. 3d 1,

13 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . To t he cont r ar y, t he "st at e cour t deci si on

must be so of f ensi ve t o exi st i ng pr ecedent , so devoi d of r ecor d

suppor t , or so ar bi t r ar y, as t o i ndi cat e i t i s out si de t he uni ver se

of pl ausi bl e, cr edi bl e opt i ons. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k

omi t t ed) . Thi s i s a hi gh hur dl e, whi ch we ar e not even cl ose t o

surmount i ng her e. Hensl ey has f ai l ed t o cast doubt on t he SJ C' s

deci si on as t o hi s Si xth Amendment i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

counsel cl ai m. The SJ C di d not unr easonabl y appl y St r i ckl and when

i t concl uded t hat Hensl ey' s at t or ney' s per f or mance was not

def i ci ent . 8 Hensl ey' s 2254( d) ( 1) cont est i s wi t hout mer i t .

III. CONCLUSION

Bot h Hensl ey' s Si xth Amendment r i ght t o conf r ont at i on

of f er i ng, and r i ght t o ef f ect i ve r epr esent at i on i mpl or at i on, f al l

shor t . The di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of Hensl ey' s pet i t i on f or

habeas r el i ef i s af f i r med.

8 Because ( as we see i t ) t he SJ C' s det er mi nat i on r egar di ngcounsel ' s per f ormance was not unr easonabl e, we need not get i nt oSt r i ckl and' s pr ej udi ce component .

-28-

Hensley v. Roden, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents

Transcript of Hensley v. Roden, 1st Cir. (2014)