BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI, District Judge.
Before this Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1) by pro se petitioner Richard Chippero ("Chippero") challenging his criminal convictions and sentences imposed by the State of New Jersey for purposeful or knowing murder and second-degree weapon possession for an unlawful purpose. (ECF Nos. 11; 22-5 at 15; and 16 at 15.) Chippero is presently confined at Northern State Prison in Newark, New Jersey. (ECF No. 1 at 1, 20.) Chippero seeks a writ of habeas corpus, a reversal of his convictions, and a judgment of acquittal. (Id. at 18.) The Court has considered the Petition, the Respondents' Answer (ECF No. 10), and the record of proceedings in this matter. For the reasons stated below, the Court
On July 23, 1991, Ermina Rose Tocci was murdered in her North Brunswick mobile home. She had been raped and stabbed in the neck. At the time of the homicide, Chippero resided next door to her. The police initially considered the victim's live-in boyfriend and her brother as suspects. However, two days after the murder, Kevin McMenemy, a former neighbor of Tocci, told the police that on the day of the murder, he saw a man running from the front of the victim's mobile home into the immediately-adjacent mobile home, which was Chippero's residence. The man was perspiring, but there was no blood on the man or his clothing. (ECF No. 16 at 2.) Based on the information from McMenemy, police investigators sought a search warrant for Chippero's mobile home. After the Honorable Robert P. Figarotta, J.S.C issued the warrant ("Premises Warrant"), Chippero's grandmother let detectives into his mobile home. While some detectives searched Chippero's residence, others went to find him. They located him at a nearby lake. (Id. at 3.) One detective approached Chippero and identified himself as a police officer. Chippero acknowledged he was Richard Chippero, waived his Miranda rights, and signed a rights waiver form. After a nine-hour custodial interrogation, Chippero confessed to the crime. Investigators searching his mobile home seized several items, including a pair of Chinese-made T-956 sneakers ("the Sneakers")—one of which had a sole tread pattern that could match a bloody footprint impression left on the victim's back. (Id.)
In Chippero's trial for murder in 1995 (the "First Trial"), he was convicted by a deathqualified jury of capital murder, weapon possession for an unlawful purpose, aggravated sexual assault, and hindering apprehension or prosecution. (ECF Nos. 16 at 3 and 22-8 at 14); State v. Chippero, 753 A.2d 701, 707 (N.J. 2000) ("Chippero I"). Although the jury found Chippero guilty of capital murder, it did not vote to impose the death penalty. State v. Chippero, 987 A.2d 555, 560 (N.J. 2009) ("Chippero II"). The court sentenced him to two concurrent life terms with a fiftyfive-year parole disqualifier. (ECF Nos. 17-3 at 1 and 22-8 at 14.) On appeal, Chippero challenged the admissibility of his confession but did not raise the validity of the Premises Warrant. (ECF No. 17-3 at 1.) The Appellate Division upheld the conviction and sentence. (ECF No. 11-2 at 4, 24.) The panel accepted, as the factual predicate to the parties' arguments, that Chippero had been subjected to an illegal arrest, but found the passage of time between the arrest and confession broke the causal connection between the two and purged the confession of any taint from the illegal arrest. (ECF No. 11-2 at 11, 19-20.)
However, in a June 30, 2000 written opinion (ECF No. 11-3), the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed Chippero's conviction, concluding: (1) his confession had been impermissibly obtained through the State's arrest of him without probable cause, and (2) therefore the confession should not have been used against him at trial. Chippero I, 753 A.2d 701 (N.J. 2000) (holding defendant's confession, obtained after almost nine unbroken hours of custodial interrogation, was not sufficiently attenuated from his illegal arrest; and remanding for a new trial because: "mere passage of time ordinarily does not purge the taint of an illegal arrest," "[defendant] was arrested without probable cause, as the State acknowledged," and "there is an unbroken causal connection between defendant's arrest and confession"). The case was remanded for retrial with a direction that the confession be excluded. Chippero I, 753 A.2d at 703, 712-13.
Prior to the start of the second trial, Chippero moved again to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his mobile home. He re-raised the arguments advanced prior to the First Trial: (1) the search warrant was not supported by sufficient evidence, adding now that his position had support from Chippero I's determination that the State lacked probable cause to arrest him at the time of the search warrant's execution; and (2) the warrant application was based on information known by the State to be false and misleading. Chippero also raised a third argument— i.e., the Premises Warrant did not authorize the seizure of the Sneakers taken from his bedroom. Although the State argued that Chippero could not resurrect his prior challenge to the Premises Warrant, the court addressed Chippero's challenge on its merits and denied his motion to suppress. Chippero II, 987 A.2d at 560-61.
In Chippero's retrial in 2003 ("Second Trial"), the court excluded his confession but admitted evidence seized from his mobile home. Chippero II, 987 A.2d at 561; (ECF No. 16 at 5.) In all other respects, the State's proof was substantially similar to that used in the First Trial, including evidence admitted over Chippero's objection that one of the Sneakers had a sole pattern that could have caused the footprint imprint on Tocci's back. (ECF No. 16 at 5.) On March 7, 2003, the jury found Chippero guilty of purposeful or knowing murder, N.J STAT. ANN. § 2C:11-3a(1), and second-degree weapon possession for an unlawful purpose, N.J STAT. ANN § 2C:39-4d. (ECF Nos. 22-5 at 15 and 16 at 5.) The judge merged the convictions and imposed a life-term sentence with a thirty-year parole disqualifier. (ECF No. 16 at 5-6.)
Chippero appealed from the second conviction. (ECF Nos. 12-2 and 16 at 6.) One of Chippero's direct-appeal contentions was that "the trial court erred by ruling that the search warrant was valid, compelling reversal of [Chippero's] conviction." (ECF No. 16 at 6.) Basing his argument on Chippero I's premise that the State lacked probable cause to arrest him, Chippero contended the lack of probable cause to arrest him eviscerated the legitimacy of the finding of probable cause to search his home the same day. See Chippero II, 987 A.2d at 561. The Appellate Division ordered a telephonic argument and supplemental briefing to address this contention first of the arguments raised in Chippero's direct appeal proceedings. The State argued its Chippero I concession of lack of probable cause to arrest was made only to focus the argument on the attenuation issue. The State contended its concession and the New Jersey Supreme Court's remand had to be understood in that context and did not affect the Premises Warrant's validity. (ECF No. 16 at 6.)
On August 9, 2006, the Appellate Decision issued a decision temporarily remanding to permit the development of a record on the issue of "whether the Supreme Court ruling [of lack of probable cause to arrest] affected the determination of probable cause to support a search warrant which issued before the arrest." (ECF Nos. 13-4 at 10 and 16 at 6.) Specifically, the Appellate Division asked the Law Division to develop the contention the State acknowledged an illegal arrest for purposes of the argument before the Supreme Court only. The Appellate Division also asked the judge to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue of the search of Chippero's mobile home. (ECF Nos. 13-4 at 12-13 and 16 at 6-7.)
On September 28, 2006, on remand, the Law Division found "that any concession by the State that probable cause to arrest was lacking was confined to the arguments relating to the admissibility of the confession and did not affect or impact the validity of [the warrant judge's] determination that probable cause existed to search [Chippero's] [mobile home]." (ECF Nos. 15 at 5-6 and 16 at 7.) In short, the Law Division concluded that the validity of the warrant judge's probable cause determination remained unaffected by what later transpired in Chippero I.
Chippero reasserted his arguments before the Appellate Division (ECF No. 16 at 7), which held on May 13, 2008, that a finding of probable cause to issue a search warrant for Chippero's home could not be supported in light of Chippero I's statement that his arrest was without probable cause (ECF No. 16 at 7-8, 13-14). Given the Appellate Division's holding that "[t]here is no suggestion in the Supreme Court's [Chippero I] opinion or otherwise that the probable cause to arrest, which was lacking, can be distinguished from the probable cause to search" (id. at 13), the court did not reach the other issues that Chippero raised on appeal. The Appellate Division reversed Chippero's conviction and remanded for a new trial (Id. at 14-15).
The State petitioned for certification from the New Jersey Supreme Court; Chippero opposed it. (ECF Nos. 16-2 and 16-3.) On December 4, 2008, the Court granted the petition. (ECF No. 16-4.)
On December 29, 2009, in a written opinion (Chippero II), the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division. Chippero II, 987 A.2d at 559; (ECF No. 17-3 at 3, 6-7.) The Chippero II court remanded to the Appellate Division for consideration of Chippero's arguments that had been unaddressed by state courts on direct appeal ("Remaining Appellate Arguments"). (ECF Nos. 17-3 and 16 at 14-15.
On May 5, 2011, Chippero filed a petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR"). (ECF No. 18-1.) On May 23, 2012, Chippero filed an Amended Petition for PCR. (ECF No. 18-3.) On August 27, 2012, the PCR trial court denied the PCR petition. (ECF No. 18-7.) On January 31, 2013, Chippero filed a Notice of Appeal of PCR denial. (ECF No. 18-8.) On July 7, 2014, the PCR appellate court denied Chippero's appeal. (ECF No. 19-2.) On July 14, 2014, Chippero sought certification from the New Jersey Supreme Court. (ECF No. 19-3.) On December 16, 2014, Chippero's request was denied. (ECF No. 19-5.)
Chippero raises seven grounds for relief in his Petition to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking a writ of habeas corpus, reversal of his conviction, and entry of a judgment of acquittal. (ECF No. 1 at 18.) Ground One of the Petition alleges there was no probable cause to search his residence and Chippero II violates his constitutional rights. (Id. at 6-7.) Ground Two claims there were errors in the jury charge given at his Second Trial. (Id. at 8-9.) Ground Three claims he is actually innocent of the state charges against him and the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. (Id. at 9-10.) Ground Four claims an overlay of his T-956 sneakers, used by one of the State's witnesses to explain his opinion, was improperly admitted at trial. (Id. at 10-12.) Ground Five claims Chippero received ineffective assistance of counsel ("IAC") during the Second Trial. (Id. at 12-13.) Ground Six claims Chippero's appellate counsel rendered IAC. (Id. at 13-14.) Ground Seven contends Chippero is entitled to an evidentiary hearing "on this matter." (Id. at 14.)
Section 2254(a) permits a court to entertain only claims alleging a person is in state custody "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Chippero has the burden of establishing each claim in the petition. Eley v. Erickson, 712 F.3d 837, 846 (3d Cir. 2013). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244 ("AEDPA"), federal courts in habeas corpus cases must give considerable deference to determinations of the state trial and appellate courts. See Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 772 (2010).
Section 2254(d) sets the standard for granting or denying a writ of habeas corpus:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Where a state court has adjudicated a petitioner's federal claim on the merits, a federal court:
Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37, 40 (2012) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)). Petitioners carry the burden of proof, and § 2254(d) review is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 99 (2011). Further:
Shotts v. Wetzel, 724 F.3d 364, 375 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Thomas v. Horn, 570 F.3d 105, 115 (3d Cir. 2009)). A court begins the analysis under § 2254(d)(1) by determining the relevant law clearly established by the Supreme Court. See Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 660 (2004). "[C]learly established law for purposes of § 2254(d)(1) includes only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of t[he Supreme Court's] decisions," as of the time of the relevant state-court decision. White v. Woodall, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 1702 (2014) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000)). A decision is "contrary to" a Supreme Court holding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) if the state court "contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court's] cases" or if it "confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of th[e Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a [different] result." Williams, 529 U.S. at 405-06. Under the "`unreasonable application' clause of § 2254(d)(1), a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from th[e Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case." Id. at 413. A federal court must confine its examination under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) to evidence in the record. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180-81 (2011).
Where a petitioner seeks habeas relief pursuant to § 2254(d)(2) on the basis of an erroneous factual determination of the state court, two provisions of the AEDPA apply. First, "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct [and] [t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence." 29 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 240 (2005). Second, the AEDPA precludes habeas relief unless the adjudication of the claim "resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
Under the AEDPA, this Court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless the petitioner has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the state or exhaustion is excused under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B). See Henderson v. Frank, 155 F.3d 159, 164 (3d Cir. 1998); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997); Toulson v. Beyer, 987 F.2d 984 (3d Cir. 1993). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, "state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process." O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). "The burden is on the habeas petitioner to prove exhaustion." DeFoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 442 (3d Cir. 2005). The exhaustion doctrine mandates that the claim "must have been `fairly presented' to the state courts." Bronshtein v. Horn, 404 F.3d 700, 725 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971)). "Fair presentation means that a petitioner must present a federal claim's factual and legal substance to the state courts in a manner that puts them on notice that a federal claim is being asserted." Rainey v. Varner, 603 F.3d 189, 198 (3d Cir. 2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In sum, the exhaustion doctrine requires the petitioner to afford the state courts "the opportunity to resolve the federal constitutional issues before he goes to the federal court for habeas relief." Id. (quoting Zicarelli v. Gray, 543 F.2d 466, 472 (3d Cir. 1976)); see also Gould v. Ricci, No. 10-1399-NLH, 2011 WL 6756920, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2011) (explaining the same). The exhaustion doctrine therefore requires a petitioner challenging a New Jersey conviction under § 2254 to have fairly presented each federal ground that is raised in the petition to all three levels of the New Jersey courts—that is, the Law Division, the Appellate Division, and the New Jersey Supreme Court. See O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. 838; Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982).
Even when a petitioner properly exhausts a claim, a federal court may not grant habeas relief if the state court's decision rests on a violation of a state procedural rule. See Johnson v. Pinchak, 392 F.3d 551, 556 (3d Cir. 2004). Federal habeas courts generally refuse to hear claims "`defaulted . . . in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule.'" Johnson v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 1802, 1803 (2016) (quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991)). "State rules count as `adequate' if they are `firmly established and regularly followed.'" Id. (quoting Walker v. Martin, 562, U.S. 307, 316 (2011)). In New Jersey, the Appellate Division frequently declines to consider claims that were not raised in the trial court first. See State v. Robinson, 974 A.2d 1057, 1069 (2009) ("It is a well-settled principle that our appellate courts will decline to consider questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court when an opportunity for such a presentation is available. . . .") (quoting Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973)); State v. Coleman, Indictment No. 13-04-0210, 2016 WL 6937921, at *5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Nov. 28, 2016); State v. Dunlap, Indictment No. 10-07-0983, 2016 WL 207616, at *1 n.3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Jan. 19, 2016). If a federal court determines that a claim has been defaulted, it may excuse the default only upon a showing of "cause and prejudice" or a "fundamental miscarriage of justice." Leyva v. Williams, 504 F.3d 357, 366 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Lines v. Larkins, 208 F.3d 153, 166 (3d Cir. 2000)).
To the extent that a petitioner's constitutional claims are unexhausted or procedurally defaulted, a court can nevertheless deny them on the merits under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). See Taylor v. Horn, 504 F.3d 416, 427 (3d Cir. 2007); Bronshtein, 404 F.3d at 728.
Relying on Chippero I's ruling that there was no probable cause to arrest him (ECF No. 11-3), Chippero argues there was similarly no probable cause to search his residence. He contends that "any items found in [his] residence" should have been excluded from evidence at the Second Trial (ECF Nos. 1 at 6-7 and 7 at 23-28) (referred to as "Search-P.C. Claim")).
During Chippero's direct appeal after the Second Trial, the court itself
(ECF No. 22-8 at 18.) The Appellate Division remanded for the Law Division trial court to "consider[,] [inter alia] . . . whether there is a basis for finding probable cause to sustain the search warrant but not the arrest." (ECF No. 13-4 at 3, 12-13.)
On remand, the Law Division ruled: (1) several state courts
Chippero challenged the Law Division's decision, and the Appellate Division "agree[d] with defendant that there was no probable cause to issue a search warrant for defendant's mobile home," reversed his conviction, and remanded for a new trial. (ECF No. 16 at 7.)
The Supreme Court of New Jersey in Chippero II reversed the Appellate Division:
Chippero II, 987 A.2d at 558-59; (ECF No. 17-3 at 3, 6-7.)
Chippero did not raise the Search-P.C. Claim during PCR proceedings. (ECF Nos. 18-1 at 6; 18-3 at 2; and 22-8 at 28-32.) To the extent Chippero's Search-P.C. Claim was not fairly presented to all three levels of the state courts and is therefore unexhausted, this Court can nevertheless deny it on the merits under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). See Taylor, 504 F.3d at 427; Bronshtein, 404 F.3d at 728. In other words, this Court is free to deny Ground One on the merits.
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), forecloses Chippero's ability to raise on habeas a Fourth Amendment violation. Under Stone, Fourth Amendment claims are not cognizable on habeas review unless state courts denied petitioner an opportunity for a full and fair litigation of the claims. 428 U.S. at 494-95, 495 n. 37 ("[W]here the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial."); see also Gilmore v. Marks, 799 F.2d 51, 57 (3d Cir. 1986); Reininger v. Attorney Gen. of N.J, No. 14-5486, 2018 WL 3617962, at *9 (D.N.J. July 30, 2018). Chippero does not argue that he did not receive full and fair consideration of the Search-P.C. Claim. Indeed, the Appellate Division itself raised it sua sponte during direct appeal, and the Search-P.C. issue was subsequently adjudicated by three more courts thereafter.
Therefore, federal habeas review is unavailable for Chippero's Search-P.C. Claim because it is barred by Stone.
Accordingly, Ground One of the Petition is
In Ground Two, Chippero asserts the following challenges to the jury charges at the Second Trial: (1) the trial judge incorrectly refused to give a reckless manslaughter charge ("Lesser-Included Offense Charge Claim"); (2) the charges on credibility and motive "went beyond the model charges and were improper" ("Credibility Charge Claim"); (3) the motive charge "was unconstitutionally misleading" ("Motive Charge Claim"); (4) the "trial judge improperly used the term `perpetrator' in discussions before the jury" ("Word Choice Claim"); (5) the "extra phrase regarding lack of guilt" in the search warrant charge was improper ("Search Warrant Charge Claim"); (6) the charge regarding testimony read-back "was confusing, misleading and prejudicial" ("Testimony Read-Back Claim"); and (7) "the charge to the jury in its entirety was confusing, misleading and prejudic[ial]" ("Entire Charge Claim") (all seven claims are collectively referred to as "the Jury Charge Claims"). (ECF No. 1 at 8.)
Chippero raised the Jury Charge Claims on direct appeal after the Second Trial. (ECF No. 16 at 14-15.) In its May 13, 2008 opinion, the Appellate Division did not reach these claims because it reversed and remanded for a new trial on other grounds. (Id.) On December 7, 2010, following reversal of the Appellate Division decision and remand from the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Appellate Division on rejected the Jury Charge Claims.
For the reasons explained below, this Court finds that the Jury Charge Claims do not merit habeas relief.
The paramount question on habeas review of a jury instruction is "whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process," Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 73 (1991), and "not merely whether the instruction is undesirable, erroneous, or even universally condemned." Jacobs v. Horn, 395 F.3d 92, 111 (3d Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). "[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions." Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68. "Questions related to jury charges are normally matters of state law and are not cognizable in federal habeas review." Paulino v. Ortiz, No. 03-4463, 2005 WL 2922369, at *4 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2005). A habeas claim will lie only where "the jury instruction is so prejudicial as to amount to a violation of due process and fundamental fairness." Id. at *4 (quotations omitted). To show that a jury instruction so infected the trial:
Williams v. Beard, 637 F.3d 195, 223 (3d Cir. 2011) (emphasis added) (quoting Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179, 189 (2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). "An omission, or an incomplete instruction is less likely to be prejudicial than a misstatement of the law." Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 155 (1977).
Chippero has not made the requisite showings for habeas relief on any of his seven Jury Charge Claims, for the reasons explained below.
As to the Credibility Charge Claim, the Appellate Division found the trial judge's credibility instructions "were sufficient to explain the jury's proper role in examining prior inconsistent statements [and] adequately informed the jury of its function in assessing and weighing credibility":
(ECF No. 17-4 at 5-6.)
As to the Search Warrant Claim, the Appellate Division ruled:
(ECF No. 17-4 at 7-8.)
As to the Word Choice Claim, the Appellate Division decided:
(ECF No. 17-4 at 7.)
As to the Credibility Charge Claim, Search Warrant Claim, and Word Choice Claim, the Petition and supporting brief argue, at most, a violation of state evidentiary rules. (ECF Nos. 1 at 6-7 and 7 at 34-35.) This is insufficient to warrant habeas relief. Chippero must instead demonstrate a violation of federal due process, as clearly established by precedent of the United States Supreme Court. He has not made this requisite showing for any of these three claims.
Moreover, the Credibility Charge Claim, Search Warrant Claim, and Word Choice Claim do not demonstrate ambiguity, inconsistency, or deficiency in the given charges. Williams, 637 F.3d at 223 (citing Waddington, 555 U.S. at 189).
For example, the trial court explained at length to the jurors what their duty to weigh witness credibility entailed, including "all of the factors surrounding inconsistent statements" and "[t]he circumstances under which the statement may have been given years ago." (ECF No. 22-1 at 83.) The trial court instructed the jury "[i]t is for you to decide the ultimate credibility of the witnesses and whether a prior statement that was made is more credible or less credible." (Id.) The Appellate Division reasoned that Chippero therefore was not deprived of a fair trial by the trial court's explanation of the jury's proper function in weighing witness credibility and examining prior inconsistent statements. This Court agrees. Chippero has not demonstrated any ambiguity, inconsistency, or deficiency in the credibility charge.
With respect to the Search Warrant Claim, Chippero has not shown that the trial court's instruction was ambiguous or deficient. The trial court's statements to the jury were correct that "[a] search warrant is nothing more than an order from a judge allowing a search of a particular place for particular items" and "the fact that a search warrant was issued is not evidence of guilt . . . [nor] a lack of guilt." (ECF No. 22-1 at 60.) The Appellate Division observed that the trial judge's statement "merely neutralized the evidence about the search warrant." (ECF No. 17-4 at 7-8.) As Chippero did on his direct appeal, he again on habeas "does not explain [any] basis for his objection" (id. at 8) to the judge's search warrant comments, much less one that suggests constitutional implications.
With respect to the Word Choice Claim, this Court's review of the record suggests that Chippero's challenge appears to focus on this statement the trial court made to the jury:
(ECF No. 22-1 at 62.) Chippero had argued on direct appeal that use of the word "perpetrator" negated his alternate defense theory that, even if McMenemy did see him walking into his home on July 23, 1991, it did not mean he committed the murder. (ECF No. 17-4 at 7.) Chippero's habeas challenge to the trial court's use of the term "perpetrator" when reviewing McMenemy's testimony invites this Court to evaluate that term out of context. This Court declines to do.
The Appellate Division could have reasonably decided the "perpetrator" term "does not translate into `the defendant in this case.'" (Id.) The trial court's use of the term was made within the larger context of its charge to the jury that "[f]or [you] to find Mr. Chippero guilty, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was he who committed a crime." (ECF No. 22-1 at 62.) The trial court discussed McMenemy's testimony as an "example" (id.) within this larger context of the jury's duty to weigh witness testimony identifying the perpetrator of the crime, whether it was Chippero or not. Chippero has not demonstrated any unconstitutional ambiguity, inconsistency, or deficiency in the given charge as to his Search Warrant Claim.
In sum, Chippero has not shown that the state courts ignored, misapprehended, or arrived at a conclusion that was contrary to clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent which is on point regarding the issues raised by Chippero's Credibility Charge Claim, Search Warrant Claim, and Word Choice Claim. See Buggs v. Tennis, 298 F. App'x 198, 199 (3d Cir. 2008) (federal courts cannot grant habeas relief unless there is United States Supreme Court precedent that is on point, which the state courts ignored or misapprehended) (citing Williams, 529 U.S. at 406).
After itemizing to the jury each element of purposeful or knowing murder that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the jury to find Chippero guilty (ECF No. 22-1 at 63-64), the trial court stated to the jury:
(Id. at 64). The trial judge told the jury that, if it found proof as to motive, the jury could consider motive for purposes of informing its evaluation of other circumstances. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the jury applied this instruction so as to find Chippero guilty of murder without proof of one or more of that crime's elements, nor has Chippero explained how or why the motive charge "was unconstitutionally misleading." (ECF No. 1 at 8.)
The Appellate Division found Chippero's Motive Charge Claim was unsupported:
(ECF No. 17-4 at 7.)
Similar to Chippero's Credibility Charge Claim, Search Warrant Claim, and Word Choice Claim, his Motive Charge Claim appears to advance, at most, a violation of New Jersey procedural or evidentiary rules—which is insufficient to merit habeas relief. The Petition does not demonstrate a violation of federal due process, as clearly established by United States Supreme Court precedent. In fact, Chippero does not, in the first instance, show United States Supreme Court precedent that is on point with the issues raised by the Motive Charge Claim, which the state courts ignored or misapprehended. Federal habeas courts cannot grant relief in such instances. Buggs, 298 F. App'x at 199 (internal citations omitted). In any event, the Motive Charge Claim does not show a constitutional violation from "a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instruction in a way that relieved the State of its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Williams, 637 F.3d at 223.
First, as to the Testimony Read-Back Claim, Chippero had argued on direct appeal that "the judge erred by responding to the jury's request for a read-back of the testimony of Mary Giaquinto, Leonard Falabelda and Barbara Traube, `regarding the time that [defendant] allegedly approached them, and what he said to them.'" (ECF No. 17-4 at 9.
(ECF No. 17-4 at 10.)
Chippero has not demonstrated how the Appellate Division's decision regarding the trial judge's testimony read-back was contrary to or an unreasonable application of United States Supreme Court precedent. Chippero has cited no United States Supreme Court decision, and this Court has not located any, addressing a criminal defendant's constitutional right to the scope of read-back presented to a jury or delineating the manner in which a trial court should respond to a jury's request to have testimony read back for them. See Beltran v. Hastings, No. 12-2042, 2014 WL 1665727, at *23 (D.N.J. Apr. 24, 2014) (finding no Supreme Court precedent "delineating the manner in which a trial court should respond to a jury's request to have certain testimony read or played back for them"); see also Hilson v. Junious, No. 1-0072-MWF, 2013 WL 5574989, at *17 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2013) (finding no Supreme Court precedent that "squarely addresses whether a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to have testimony read back to the jury"). In the absence of United States Supreme Court precedent on this issue, this Court cannot conclude that the Appellate Division's decision regarding testimony read-back was contrary to or an unreasonable application of United States Supreme Court precedent.
Accordingly, to prevail on his Testimony Read-Back Claim, Chippero must establish that the state court's actions violated the "`fundamental fairness' essential to justice." Marra v. Larkins, 46 F. App'x 83, 87 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 642 (1974)). Chippero has not made such a showing.
In this jurisdiction, the Third Circuit has held a trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether to accede to a jury's request for reading of testimony. United States v. Zarintash, 736 F.2d 66, 69-70 (3d Cir. 1984) (citing United States v. Chrzanowski, 502 F.2d 573, 577 (3d Cir. 1974); United States v. Rabb, 453 F.2d 1012 (3d Cir. 1971); United States v. Chicarelli, 445 F.2d 1111 (3d Cir. 1971)). This discretion is premised on two considerations: (1) requests to read testimony may slow the trial where the relevant testimony is lengthy; and (2) reading only a portion of the testimony may cause the jury to give that portion undue emphasis. Zarintash, 736 F.2d at 70 (citing Rabb, 453 F.2d at 1013-14). In this case: (1) the judge reasonably could have sought to avoid the potentially significant delays that would accompany reading back the entirety of the testimony given by Giaquinto, Traube, and Falabelda; and (2) the trial judge's response—tailored to the jury's specific requests of particular portions of testimony—ensured that no particular piece of testimony was given undue emphasis. This was important, given that the judge had instructed the jury that their recollection of the testimony controlled. Furthermore, the trial judge reasonably could have determined that a read-back of all three witnesses' testimony would have been at the least very cumbersome and at the worst entirely impracticable. A full read-back of all three also posed a possibility of unequal compliance with the other jury excerpt read-back requests for witnesses other than that of Giaquinto, Falabelda, and Traube. This Court's review of the record reveals nothing to indicate that the trial judge abused his discretion in his handling of the jury request for transcripts of testimony or that his read-back decision violated fundamental fairness. Rather, the record suggests he dealt with the jury's request in a manner that expedited a fair and reasoned response to them. The Appellate Division's affirmance of the trial court's decision did not violate Chippero's constitutional right to fundamental fairness.
Second, Chippero's Lesser-Included Offense Claim also fails to warrant granting federal habeas relief. During the jury charge conference, Chippero asked for a reckless manslaughter charge, arguing that the element of recklessness or intent was a jury question. The State objected. Focusing on the number of stab wounds to the victim's neck, the judge ruled that there was no rational basis to charge the jury on aggravated or reckless manslaughter.
(ECF No. 17-4 at 2-5.)
Chippero has not shown that the Appellate Division's affirmance of the trial court is either contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, United States Supreme Court precedent.
A habeas petitioner who challenges state jury instructions must "point to a federal requirement that jury instructions on the elements of an offense . . . must include particular provisions" or demonstrate that the jury "instructions deprived him of a defense which federal law provided to him." Johnson v. Rosemeyer, 117 F.3d 104, 110 (3d Cir. 1997). However, the failure to give the lesser-included crime instruction for reckless manslaughter in Chippero's case here was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of United States Supreme Court precedent because: (1) the Supreme Court has never held the Due Process Clause guarantees the right of a defendant to have the jury instructed on a lesser-included offense in a non-capital case, such as Chippero's Second Trial here; and (2) in any event, a lesser-included offense instruction is constitutionally required in a capital case only when warranted by the evidence, and the New Jersey courts reasonably found as to Chippero's non-capital Second Trial that the requested lesser-included offense charges were not supported by the evidence.
In Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. at 627, the United States Supreme Court held the death penalty may not be imposed "when the jury was not permitted to consider a verdict of guilt of a lesser-included non-capital offense, and when the evidence would have supported such a verdict." The Beck Court ruled, in a capital case, a trial court must give a requested charge on a lesser included offense where it is supported by the evidence. 447 U.S. at 635. The Beck Court expressly limited its holding to capital cases. Id. at 638 n.14 (refusing to "decide whether the Due Process Clause would require the giving of such instructions in a noncapital case"). In Vujosevic v. Rafferty, 844 F.2d 1023, 1028 n.1 (3d Cir. 1988), the Third Circuit interpreted Beck to require instructions for any lesser-included offense rationally supported by the evidence in any criminal case (not just capital murder cases). However, since Vujosevic was decided, questions have been raised as to whether Vujosevic is consistent with current United States Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g., Scott v. Bartkowski, No. 11-CV-3365, 2013 WL 4537651, at *13 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2013) (holding "[a]s this is not a capital case, petitioner fails to show the denial of this claim was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as the Supreme Court has not recognized that he has a due process right to jury instructions on lesser included offenses"); Nesmith v. Cathel, No. 05-CV-4069, 2007 WL 2247899, at *7 (D.N.J. Aug. 7, 2007) (holding "the Supreme Court has never held that the Due Process Clause guarantees the right of a defendant to have the jury instructed on a lesser included offense in a non-capital case"); Geschwendt v. Ryan, 967 F.2d 87, 884-85, n.13 (3d Cir. 1992) (en banc) (questioning whether Vujosevic is "still good law"); see also Hopkins v. Reeves, 524 U.S. 88, 97 (1998) ("Almost all states provide instructions only on those offenses that have been deemed to constitute lesser included offenses of the charged crime. We have never suggested that the Constitution requires anything more."); Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605, 611 (1982) (holding due process does not require lesser-included offense instruction in death penalty case where there is no lesser-included offense under state law).
Here, there is no indication in the habeas record before this Court that Chippero's second trial was a capital case. The jury at that second trial found him guilty of purposeful or knowing murder, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:11-3a(1), and weapon possession, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-4(d). See (ECF Nos. 16 at 5 and 22-5 at 15.) The New Jersey courts found the evidence at that second proceeding did not rationally support any lesser-included offense of reckless manslaughter. Any error of state law regarding this determination cannot form the basis for habeas relief, as habeas relief is not available for violations of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1991) ("[T]he fact that the instruction was allegedly incorrect under state law is not a basis for habeas relief."); Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982) ("Insofar as respondents simply challenge the correctness of the self-defense instructions under Ohio law, they allege no deprivation of federal rights and may not obtain habeas relief."). In addition, the finding that the evidence did not support a reckless manslaughter instruction is entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), and Chippero has not rebutted this presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. Habeas relief is not warranted on this ground because the failure to instruct on a lesser-included offense does not violate due process where such an instruction is not supported by the evidence, and the New Jersey courts' determination that the evidence did not warrant a reckless manslaughter instruction must be presumed to be correct. See Kontakis v. Beyer, 19 F.3d 110, 119 (3d Cir. 1994).
Furthermore, even if Vujosevic was applicable here, the state courts reasonably found that a reckless manslaughter charge was not supported by the evidence. The Appellate Division determined that no evidence was presented at trial on the killer's state of mind (ECF No. 17-4 at 4), and Chippero cites to no such evidence of such in his habeas papers (ECF Nos. 1 and 7). Chippero has not demonstrated a factual or legal basis to request the lesser-included offense charges. Such charges were not supported by the evidence. Therefore, the Appellate Division's affirmance of the trial court is neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, United States Supreme Court law.
To be sure, the United States Supreme Court has stated the failure to give an instruction may violate due process where the error "so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violate[d] due process." Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 (1997) (citation omitted). However, this Court agrees with the New Jersey courts' finding, if believed, the evidence against Chippero did not provide a rational basis for a reckless manslaughter instruction. Accordingly, Chippero has not shown there was an error that infected the entire trial and violated due process, and he is not entitled to habeas relief.
Finally, Chippero's Entire Charge Claim also fails the habeas standard of review. The Appellate Division ruled that the jury charge as a whole met the constitutional standard:
(ECF No. 17-4 at 11.) This Court agrees.
None of the charges relieved the State of proving any element of any of the crimes for which Chippero stood trial. Rather, the trial court instructed the jury that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of each charged offense. (ECF No. 22-1 at 54, 56-59, 61-63.) Chippero fails to demonstrate that any specific charge, or failure to give any specific charge, deprived him of a defense that federal law provided to him. See Rosemeyer, 117 F.3d at 110. The charges here comported with the law, as discussed at length supra in this Opinion. Moreover, the model jury charges Chippero references in Ground Two, merely inform trial courts on particular issues and are typically provided as a guide for trial courts. They are not required instructions. Furthermore, the Court finds that the instructions as given to the jury did not affect the trial's outcome, as there was sufficient evidence at trial to support Chippero's conviction. See, e.g., (ECF No. 22-1 at 47-50.)
Given the content of the charge as a whole, Chippero has not shown that any specific instructions, whether individually or collectively, so infected the trial with unfairness as to amount to a violation of due process. See, e.g., Paulino, 2005 WL 2922369, at *3. Chippero's claims are baseless, and he has not shown a federal constitutional deprivation entitling him to habeas relief. "[E]rrors of state law cannot be repackaged as federal errors simply by citing the Due Process Clause." Rosemeyer, 117 F.3d at 110. There is no basis for this Court to conclude that the Appellate Division's rulings were contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, United States Supreme Court precedent.
Accordingly, the Jury Charge Claims fail on the merits and Ground Two is
In Ground Three, Chippero claims he is "actually innocent of the charges against [me] and the verdict is against the weight of the evidence thereby denying [me] a fair trial and due process of law." (ECF No. 1 at 9.) This Court reasonably construes Ground Three to assert two separate claims: actual innocence and weight of the evidence.
On direct appeal in state court, Chippero argued the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case. (ECF No. 12-2 at 83-84.) The New Jersey Appellate Division rejected this claim. (ECF No. 17-4 at 28.) Chippero raised this issue in his petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court (ECF No. 17-5), which that Court denied (ECF No. 18).
Chippero then raised an actual innocence claim in his PCR petition (ECF Nos. 18-1 at 6 ("Defendant is actually innocent of the crimes of which he was convicted.") and 19 at 10), which the PCR trial court rejected (ECF No. 22-8 at 47 ("The defendant has had extensive appeals and trials. Defendant was found guilty by a jury of his peers and as such, this Court finds that any argument relative to the reconsideration of that evidence, the rehashing of that evidence, without any corroboration, in addition to what is already in the record, is just bald-faced assertions, and as our courts have concluded in that language, calling it bald-faced assertion, to be without merit.")). Chippero appealed denial of PCR only as to IAC claims, arguing the PCR trial court improperly denied his petition without an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 19 at 13, 19-38.) The PCR appellate court rejected his claim. (ECF No. 19-2 at 6-8.) Chippero filed a petition for certification (ECF No. 19-3), which was denied (ECF No. 19-5).
Currently, the United States Supreme Court treats actual innocence as a gateway for consideration of procedurally defaulted claims. See McQuiggin, 133 S.Ct. 1924; Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327-29 (1995) (requiring a showing "that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted [the petitioner] in the light of the new evidence"). The Supreme Court has not yet recognized the existence of a freestanding claim of actual innocence. See McQuiggin, 133 S. Ct. at 1931; cf. In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952 (2009); see also Wright v. Superintendent Somerset SCI, 601 F. App'x 115, 119 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. denied sub nom. Wright v. Wingard, 136 S.Ct. 241, 193 L. Ed. 2d 180 (2015), reh'g denied, 136 S.Ct. 580, 193 L. Ed. 2d 462 (2015).
Here, even assuming that a freestanding claim of actual innocence is cognizable under § 2254, Chippero failed to exhaust such claim because he did not present it to the PCR appellate court. (ECF No. 19 at 13, 19-38.) However, this Court is free to review and reject such claim on the merits under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2), which this Court will now proceed to do for the following reasons. See Taylor, 504 F.3d at 427; Bronshtein, 404 F.3d at 728.
Chippero provides no new evidence whatsoever of his actual innocence, much less evidence that meets the "extraordinarily high" standard of proof required for such a claim. Furthermore, Chippero does not meet the standard for a gateway claim under Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327-29, which requires a showing "that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted [the petitioner] in the light of the new evidence." See also Hubbard v. Pinchak, 378 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a habeas court can review a claim that the evidence produced at a state trial was insufficient to convict petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt, but the relevant question for the federal court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements on the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 318-19.
Having reviewed the relevant record, the Court finds the PCR trial court did not err in rejecting Chippero's actual innocence claim. Chippero has not presented any evidence of actual innocence suggesting that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. Instead, Chippero relies merely on the unsupported, blanket assertion in his Petition: "There was no direct or circumstantial evidence adduced at trial that could lead to an inference of guilt." (ECF No. 1 at 9.) Contrary to Chippero's contention, the record at trial was replete with evidence adduced against him, including: the testimony of his mother who gave the police Chippero's gray tee-shirt which she had just washed blood stains out of (ECF No. 22-1 at 47-48); his mother's and Dr. DeForest's testimony regarding the blood-stained shoelace from the Sneakers and the shoe imprint on the victim's back (id. at 49-50
In light of the absence of any evidence, let alone reliable new evidence, to support his assertions of innocence, Chippero has not presented a meritorious actual innocence claim. See Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998) ("To be credible, a claim of actual innocence must be based on reliable evidence not presented at trial. Given the rarity of such evidence, in virtually every case, the allegation of actual innocence has been summarily rejected." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
On direct appeal, Chippero contended the trial court erred by denying his judgment of acquittal. The Appellate Division rejected this claim. (ECF No. 17-4 at 28.) In his PCR petition, Chippero challenged the weight of evidence against him only within the context of his actual innocence claim (ECF No. 18-1 at 19-25) and not as a freestanding sufficiency of the evidence claim. However, on appeal of denial of PCR, the PCR appellate court addressed the issue of weight of the evidence, deciding the "proofs adequately support[ed] the jury's verdict. Therefore, there was no miscarriage of justice." (ECF No. 17-4 at 13.) Whether or not Chippero's sufficiency of the evidence claim in Ground Three is exhausted or unexhausted, it must be denied on the merits for the following reasons.
A claim that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence raises a due process concern where, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, [no] rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" should the writ issue. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). This standard must be applied "with explicit reference to the elements of the criminal offense as defined by state law." Id. at 324, n.16; see also Orban v. Vaughn, 123 F.3d 727 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1059 (1998). In addition, state court factual determinations are presumed to be correct. See Werts v. Vaughn, 228 F.3d 178, 186 (3d Cir. 2000). "[I]t is the responsibility of the jury—not the court— to decide what conclusions should be drawn from evidence admitted at trial. A reviewing court may set aside the jury's verdict on the ground of insufficient evidence only if no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the jury." Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1, 2 (2011) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)). Furthermore, "a federal court may not overturn a state court decision rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge simply because the federal court disagrees with the state court. The federal court instead may do so only if the state court decision was `objectively unreasonable.'" Id. (citing Renico, 559 U.S. at 772 (internal quotation marks omitted)). Pursuant to Jackson, "evidence is sufficient to support a conviction so long as `after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Cavazos, 565 U.S. at 7 (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). It also "instructs that a reviewing court `faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume—even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record—that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution.'" Id. (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326). In addition, where the state court addressed the claim on the merits, the deference to state court decisions required by § 2254(d) is also applied to the state court's already deferential review. See id. at 7; see also Parker, 567 U.S. at 43 (describing standard as "twice-deferential").
Here, having viewed the trial record in the light most favorable to the prosecution and with the appropriate deference to the state court decision, the Court finds a rational jury could find Chippero guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses charged if the jurors chose to believe McMenemy's testimony; to credit Dr. DeForest's analysis of the footprint evidence, the T-956 sneakers' blood-stained shoelace, and the shoe imprint on the victim's back; to discredit the accounts offered by the defense witnesses; and to find credible the testimony of Mary Giaquinto, Leonard Falabelda, and Barbara Traube. As such, Chippero has not shown the PCR appellate court's rejection of his sufficiency of the evidence claim was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, United States Supreme Court precedent.
Therefore, Chippero is not entitled to habeas relief on either an actual innocence claim or a sufficiency of the evidence claim.
Accordingly, Ground Three is
In the fourth ground of the Petition, Chippero argues "[t]he trial court erred by allowing a transparency to be used by Doctor DeForest during his testimony thereby denying him a fair trial and due process of law." (ECF No. 1 at 10.) Chippero supports his claim with the contention that "Dr. DeForest made a transparency from a sneaker seized from a room in Petitioner's house. The transparency was doctored and contorted to fit a possible print on the victim's shirt." (Id. at 11) (referred to as the "Evidentiary Error Claim").)
At trial, Dr. Peter DeForest testified for the State as an expert in criminalistics, specifically footwear impressions and blood spatters. He examined the crime scene photographs and blood stain patterns. Comparing an impression on the victim's back to the T-956 sneaker seized from Chippero, Dr. DeForest opined the impression "was made by a shoe with the same outsole pattern." (ECF No. 17-4 at 15.) He concluded the impression was made by the right T-956 sneaker seized from Chippero's bedroom "or one of the same design." (Id.) At trial, Dr. DeForest used an overlay transparency of the impression. Dr. DeForest also repeatedly admitted that his opinion was limited because: (1) there was no scale in place to measure the impression because the imprint was not noticed at the time the crime scene was processed; (2) he did not have a high quality imprint that revealed the individual features of the sneaker, and there was too much blood; and (3) he was unable to find other T-956 sneakers for comparison. When explaining the use of the overlay, Dr. DeForest testified: "This [overlay] is not of particular importance here at all because . . . we don't have a size. We don't know what the actual size of the image in the photograph is." (Id. at 15-16.) On cross-examination, Dr. DeForest again admitted the limitations of his opinion and stated "[w]e're not saying that that particular shoe made that mark." (Id. at 16.)
On direct appeal, Chippero claimed Dr. DeForest should not have been permitted to use an overlay of the sneakers to explain his opinion. (ECF No. 12-2 at 66-70.) The New Jersey Appellate Division rejected this claim. (ECF No. 17-4 at 15-16.) Chippero raised this issue in his petition for certification (ECF No. 17-5), which was denied (ECF No. 18).
This Court finds Chippero's Evidentiary Error Claim does not merit habeas relief.
It is well-established that the violation of a right created by state law is not cognizable as a basis for federal habeas relief. Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68 ("We have stated many times that `federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.'" (quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990))). Accordingly, Chippero cannot obtain relief for any errors in state law evidentiary rulings, unless they rise to the level of a deprivation of due process. Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 563-64 (1967) ("[T]he Due Process Clause guarantees fundamental elements of fairness in a criminal trial. . . ."); accord Estelle, 502 U.S. at 70. For a habeas petitioner to prevail on a claim that an evidentiary error amounted to a deprivation of due process, he must show that the error was so pervasive as to have denied him a fundamentally fair trial. See Keller v. Larkins, 251 F.3d 408, 413 (3d Cir. 2001).
Therefore, Chippero must show on habeas review that the challenged evidentiary rulings deprived him of due process. He cannot make such a showing. The state court properly considered the limitations of the sneaker overlay that Dr. DeForest used when testifying and determined that the evidence was admissible. Chippero has not shown such a determination was an error, much less that it was an error that was so pervasive as to have denied him a fundamentally fair trial. As the Appellate Division observed: "There is nothing inherently improper [under New Jersey law] in the use of demonstrative or illustrative evidence." (ECF No. 17-4 at 16.) In "this context" (id.) of (1) Dr. DeForest's direct testimony, (2) his admission on cross-examination of the overlay's limitations, and (3) the testimony of Chippero's mother who denied that the Sneakers belonged to him, this Court agrees with the Appellate Division that the trial judge "did not abuse his discretion in allowing the use of the overlay" (Id). Chippero cannot establish there was an error which denied him a fundamentally fair trial.
Accordingly, Ground Four is
In his fifth ground for relief, Chippero argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel ("IAC") during the Second Trial in 2003. (ECF No. 1 at 12.) In his brief supporting the Petition, Chippero claims the trial counsel: (1) "failed to sufficiently argue for proper jury charges" that are the subject of Ground Two
In his PCR application, Chippero raised nine IAC claims, including arguing trial counsel failed to request lesser-included offense instructions. (ECF Nos. 18-1 at 15-16
The PCR trial court denied the claim and observed the record showed "[i]t is abundantly clear that there were extensive arguments by defense counsel on that exact issue." (ECF No. 22-8 at 43-44.) Further, the PCR trial court noted "the Appellate Division [on Petitioner's direct appeal] [had] affirmed the trial court's reasoning for not granting the lesser-included charges of aggravated and reckless manslaughter." (Id.) Accordingly, the PCR trial court ruled: (1) the lesser-included charges issue was procedurally barred under New Jersey Rule of Court 3:22-4 as it was previously adjudicated; and (2) further, the IAC claim did not satisfy either prong of the Strickland/Fritz test. (ECF No. 22-8 at 43-44 ("[T]his issue does not satisfy the two-pronged test in Strickland that counsel did not act in accordance with the standards for competent, reasonable attorneys who are practicing criminal law. And the second prong, certainly, [as to] prejudice would not be supported by the evidence. [T]he petitioner's trial counsel and appellate counsel served the defendant effectively as it pertains to the lesser-included charges.").) The PCR appellate court affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth by the PCR trial court. (ECF No. 19-2 at 1, 4-5.) The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification. (ECF No. 19-5.)
This Court finds Ground Five's Instruction-IAC Claim to be without merit.
The standard governing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is well established, as set forth by the two-prong test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). To support an IAC claim under Strickland, a petitioner must first show "counsel's performance was deficient. This requires [the petitioner to show] that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment." Id. at 687; see also United States v. Shedrick, 493 F.3d 292, 299 (3d Cir. 2007). In evaluating whether counsel was deficient, the "proper standard for attorney performance is that of `reasonably effective assistance.'" Jacobs, 395 F.3d at 102. A petitioner asserting ineffective assistance must show counsel's representation "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" under the circumstances. Id. The reasonableness of counsel's representation must be determined based on the particular facts of a petitioner's case, viewed as of the time of the challenged conduct of counsel. Id. In scrutinizing counsel's performance, courts "must be highly deferential . . . a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. A petitioner also must affirmatively demonstrate that counsel's allegedly deficient performance prejudiced his defense such that the petitioner was "deprive[d] of a fair trial . . . whose result is reliable." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 692-93; Shedrick, 493 F.3d at 299. "It is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693. The petitioner must demonstrate "there is a reasonable probability, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. at 694; see also Shedrick, 493 F.3d at 299.
"Because failure to satisfy either [Strickland] prong defeats an ineffective assistance claim, and because it is preferable to avoid passing judgment on counsel's performance when possible," courts should address the prejudice prong first where it is dispositive of a petitioner's claims. United States v. Cross, 308 F.3d 308, 315 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697-98).
When a federal habeas petition under § 2254 is based upon an IAC claim, "[t]he pivotal question is whether the state court's application of the Strickland standard was unreasonable," which "is different from asking whether defense counsel's performance fell below Strickland's standard." Grant v. Lockett, 709 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Harrington, 562 U.S. at 101). For § 2254(d)(1) purposes, "an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law." Grant, 709 F.3d at 232. "A state court must be granted a deference and latitude that are not in operation when the case involves [direct] review under the Strickland standard itself." Id. Federal habeas review of IAC claims is therefore "doubly deferential." Id. (quoting Cullen, 563 U.S. at 189). Federal habeas courts must "take a highly deferential look at counsel's performance" under Strickland, "through the deferential lens of § 2254(d)." Grant, 709 F.3d at 232.
Here, the PCR trial court's discussion of the Instruction-IAC Claim addressed both of Strickland's prongs claims: deficient performance and prejudice. (ECF No. 22-8 at 43-44.) See also Jacobs, 395 F.3d at 102 (the applicable standard is "reasonably effective assistance under the circumstances," as determined under the particular facts of each case, viewed as of the time of the challenged conduct of counsel). The state court's ruling was based upon the particular record in Chippero's case and made a reasonable application of the "performance" prong of the Strickland standard. Specifically, the PCR trial court ruled that trial counsel's performance was not deficient, in light of the fact that counsel did—contrary to Chippero's characterization of the facts— expressly argue at the charge conference in favor of giving the jury lesser-included offense charges. (See ECF No. 22 at 6, 12-14.) The PCR trial court also determined the record did not show there was a reasonable probability that the result of trial would have been different, but for trial counsel's performance as to the lesser-included offense instructions. (ECF No. 22-8 at 44.)
Chippero has not demonstrated that the PCR trial court's ruling with regard to counsel's performance as to the lesser-included offense charge was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Parker, 567 U.S. at 40 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)); Williams, 529 U.S. at 405-06; see also Harrington, 562 U.S. at 99; nor that the holding was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 413. In fact, it is clear—as the PCR trial court noted—that the record does not support the Instructions-IAC Claim in the first instance. Trial counsel did ask the judge to charge the jury on aggravated manslaughter, which was denied. (ECF No. 22 at 6, 12-14.)
For these reasons, Chippero has not shown that the state courts' ruling on the Instruction-IAC Claim was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court.
Accordingly, Ground Five's Instruction-IAC Claim as to the lesser-included offense charge lacks merit and is
As noted supra, Chippero raised nine IAC claims in his PCR petition. (ECF Nos. 18-1 at 15-16 and 19-2 at 4.) None of the IAC claims raised in Chippero's original PCR Petition (ECF No. 18-1), his Amended PCR Petition (ECF No. 18-3), or his counsel's supporting brief (ECF No. 18-5) relate to trial counsel's performance regarding the credibility charge, motive charge, search warrant charge, or entire jury charge (collectively, "Non-PCR Charge Claims").
The Non-PCR Charges themselves were constitutionally sufficient. First, this Court agrees with the written opinion of the Appellate Division from Chippero's direct appeal that the credibility charge explained the jury's proper role in examining prior inconsistent statements. This instruction, read together with the rest of the charge, adequately informed the jury of its function in assessing and weighing credibility." (ECF No. 17-4 at 6.) Second, this Court cannot discern any constitutional violations wrought by the motive charge, as it merely stated basic principles of the parties' proofs at the criminal trial. Third, this Court agrees with the Appellate Division's direct appeal opinion that the search warrant charge "merely neutralized the evidence about the search warrant." (ECF No. 17-4 at 8.) Finally, Chippero has not shown that the entire jury charge was confusing, misleading, or prejudicial, as noted supra in Section V(B) of this Court's opinion. See, e.g., Estelle, 502 U.S. at 73; Williams, 637 F.3d at 223.
Given that: the Non-PCR Charges themselves appear constitutional; the record does not support a finding that trial counsel was deficient with respect to those charges; Chippero does not, as he is required to do, identify the ways in which counsel's performance was allegedly deficient as to the Non-PCR Charges; and Chippero has not provided any arguments or evidence to demonstrate Strickland prejudice as to the Non-PCR Charges, Ground Five does not merit habeas relief. Considering the proofs adduced against Chippero at trial, the record does not demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and was prejudicial to Chippero's defense such that he was "deprive[d] of a fair trial . . . whose result is reliable." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 692-93; Shedrick, 493 F.3d at 299. Therefore, Ground Five's Instruction-IAC Claim as to Non-PCR Charges is without merit, even if not procedurally defaulted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
Accordingly, the Instruction-IAC Claim in Ground Five is
In his PCR petition, Chippero advanced a claim of actual innocence (ECF No. 22-8 at 16-25) but did not allege in either his original or amended PCR petitions that his trial counsel was ineffective for not advancing an actual innocence claim (See id. at 15-16; ECF Nos. 18-3 at 2 and 18-5 at 9-13, 16). The PCR trial court rejected Chippero's actual innocence claim because "any argument relative to the reconsideration of that [trial] evidence, without any corroboration, in addition to what is already in the record, is just bald-faced assertions." (ECF No. 22-8 at 47.) The PCR appellate court affirmed, substantially for the reasons set forth by the PCR trial court. (ECF No. 19-2 at 1, 7.)
Given that Chippero did not assert an IAC claim as to counsel's failure to allege actual innocence, the Innocence-IAC Claim appears to be unexhausted since it was not raised before the state courts. However, this Court may, and does, find the Innocence IAC-Claim to be without merit. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2); Taylor, 504 F.3d at 427; Bronshtein, 404 F.3d at 728.
First, in support of his Innocence-IAC Claim, Chippero alleges only that "[t]rial counsel failed to bring to the state court's attention the compelling reasons why petitioner is actually innocent and, at the very least the verdict was against the weight of the evidence." See Ground Three; (ECF No. 7 at 57.) Not only is this contention the sort of "bald-faced assertion without merit" the PCR trial court criticized (ECF No. 22-8 at 47), but it also fails to demonstrate either of the requisite Strickland prongs for IAC claims in these respects: (1) Chippero has not described, much less shown, how trial counsel's performance was deficient. Contrary to Chippero's contentions, his trial counsel did argue that he "did not do it. He did not commit these offenses" (ECF No. 22-1 at 6) and did advance arguments that the evidence supported innocence (Id. at 6-35); and (2) Chippero has not shown how any specific purported instances of deficient performance in fact prejudiced him such that the outcome of trial would have been different if counsel had performed differently. The well-established two-prong Strickland test requires satisfaction of both components for an IAC claim: deficient performance and prejudice. Here, Chippero has demonstrated neither. "[F]ailure to satisfy either prong defeats an ineffective assistance claim." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697-98. Therefore, Ground Five's Innocence-IAC Claim is without merit.
Second, even if this Court were to liberally construe the Innocence-IAC Claim in Ground Five as a stand-alone actual innocence claim, that claim still fails. As this Court noted supra in discussion of Ground Three, a habeas petitioner alleging a claim of actual innocence must come forward with "new reliable evidence—whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence—that was not presented at trial." Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324, 115 S.Ct. 851, 865 (1995). The petitioner must then demonstrate that, "in light of the new evidence, no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Sweger v. Chesney, 294 F.3d 506, 522 (3d Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). Here however, Chippero's habeas arguments in support of actual innocence in Ground Five are confined exclusively to a re-hashing of evidence from the Second Trial and Chippero's efforts to re-litigate the conclusions to be drawn from those proofs. (ECF No. 7 at 39-55.
Accordingly, the Innocence-IAC claim in Ground Five is
In his PCR petition, Chippero raised nine IAC claims, including: (1) trial counsel failed to adequately object to improper and misleading remarks "by an alleged expert"; (2) trial counsel failed to adequately object to qualifying Dr. DeForest as an expert in footwear; (3) trial counsel failed to have Dr. DeForest's testimony stricken from the record; and (4) trial counsel failed to request "proper jury instructions" regarding Dr. DeForest's testimony. (ECF No. 18-1 at 15-16.) Chippero's amended PCR petition claimed IAC by trial counsel for "failing to object to DeForest's testimony." (ECF No. 18-3 at 2.) In PCR counsel's brief, Chippero's attorney argued the same. (ECF No. 18-5 at 12-13.) The PCR trial court rejected the Testimony-IAC Claim for failure to satisfy Strickland's deficient performance prong:
(ECF Nos. 22-8 at 44-46 and 22-8 at 16-17.) The PCR appellate court affirmed for the reasons set forth by the PCR trial court. (ECF No. 19-2 at 1, 5-6.)
Chippero's Testimony-IAC Claim in the Petition fails to demonstrate Strickland's deficient performance prong for IAC claims.
As noted by both the PCR trial and PCR appellate courts, Chippero did not identify any defective representation by trial counsel. Contrary to Chippero's contentions, his trial counsel did argue against Dr. DeForest's qualification as an expert, against his testimony at trial about the sneakers, and against his sneaker transparency. (ECF No. 22-8 at 44-46.)
Chippero therefore has not established one of Strickland's two requisite prongs for an IAC claim. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697-98. The Appellate Division's decision affirming the PCR trial court's decision is therefore neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, United States Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, Ground Five's Testimony-IAC Claim is without merit.
Accordingly, the Instruction-IAC Claim, the Innocence-IAC Claim, and the Testimony-IAC Claim are without merit.
Accordingly, Ground Five is
Ground Six of the Petition alleges IAC by appellate counsel ("Appellate-IAC Claim"). (ECF No. 1 at 13.
In his PCR application, Chippero made a general claim of IAC of appellate counsel. (ECF No. 18-1 at 6, 14-16 (claiming on direct appeal, appellate counsel "failed to raise obvious issues of trial error").) The amended PCR petition faulted appellate counsel with "failing to brief the above-mentioned issues [as to the lesser-included offense jury charge and Dr. DeForest's testimony]." (ECF No. 18-3 at 2.) PCR counsel's brief argued the same. (ECF No. 18-5 at 6-13, 17-18.) The PCR trial court rejected the Appellate-IAC Claim:
(ECF No. 22-8 at 41, 44-47.) The PCR appellate court affirmed, substantially for the reasons set forth by the PCR trial court. (ECF No. 19-2 at 1, 6-7.)
This Court agrees with the state courts that Chippero does not meet Strickland's standard for demonstrating IAC by appellate counsel.
As to lesser-included offense charges, appellate counsel on direct appeal did challenge the trial judge's ruling to deny the requested charges. (ECF Nos. 12-2 at 52-54 and 18-6 at 22.) The Appellate Division rejected Chippero's claim. (ECF No. 17-4 at 2-5 ("[W]e conclude that the judge correctly determined that the trial record, viewed as a whole, did not support giving to the jury the lesser-included charges as aggravated and reckless manslaughter.").) As to the Dr. DeForest testimony at trial, appellate counsel briefed this issue as well. (ECF No. 12-2 at 2, 66-70.) Therefore, appellate counsel did in fact perform as Chippero contends he should have.
Consequently, Chippero has not shown that counsel failed to perform, much less that such failure was deficient under Strickland. In fact, given that the Appellate Division had rejected Chippero's challenge to Dr. DeForest's expert qualification and testimony in the First Trial (ECF No. 11-2 at 3-4, 24), the likelihood of the Appellate Division reversing itself on those same issues in the Second Trial was minimal, at best. Furthermore, given that trial courts retain broad discretion under New Jersey law to decide the qualifications of experts and the reliability of their opinions,
Chippero therefore has not demonstrated Strickland's first prong of deficient performance for IAC by appellate counsel as to lesser-included offense charges or as to Dr. DeForest's testimony at trial.
Accordingly, Ground Six is
Finally, Chippero argues in Ground Seven he "should receive an evidentiary hearing" as to "numerous attempts . . . the state courts refused [him] . . . to obtain a hearing on the admissibility of the dubious footprint evidence . . . [which] was the most damaging evidence against petitioner. If [Chippero] was afforded an evidentiary hearing in the state courts the junk science used by the prosecutor would have come to light." (ECF Nos. 1 at 14 and 7 at 60 (referred to as "Footprint Admissibility Claim").)
In Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388 (2011), the United States Supreme Court held where a § 2254 petitioner's claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings,
Id. at 1398. As the federal habeas scheme leaves "primary responsibility" with the state courts, "[i]t would be contrary to that purpose to allow a petitioner to overcome an adverse state-court decision with new evidence introduced in a federal habeas court and reviewed by that court in the first instance." Id. at 1399. The Cullen Court held "evidence introduced in federal court has no bearing on § 2254(d)(1) review. If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, a federal habeas petitioner must overcome the limitation of § 2254(d)(1) on the record that was before that state court." Id. at 1400. In this case, the New Jersey courts adjudicated Chippero's Footprint Admissibility Claim during trial, on direct appeal, and in PCR proceedings. (ECF Nos. 12-2 at 66-70; 17-4 at 15-16; 19-2 at 1, 5-6; and 22-8 at 16-17, 44-46.) The Cullen opinion therefore confines habeas review of Chippero's Footprint Admissibility Claim to only the evidence in the record before the state courts.
Section § 2254(e)(2), which controls whether a habeas petitioner may receive an evidentiary hearing in federal district court on claims that were not developed in state courts, does not alter this conclusion. Section 2254(e)(2) provides as follows:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). By the terms of its opening clause, the statute applies only to prisoners who have "failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings." If the prisoner has failed to develop the facts, an evidentiary hearing cannot be granted unless the prisoner's case meets the other conditions of § 2254(e)(2). In Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000), the United States Supreme Court held that under § 2254(e)(2), a "fail[ure] to develop" a claim's factual basis in state court proceedings is not established unless there is lack of diligence, or some greater fault, attributable to the prisoner or his counsel. If a petitioner fails to develop the factual basis of a claim in state court, this Court cannot hold an evidentiary hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Given that state courts have a duty to vindicate rights secured by the Constitution in state criminal proceedings, the state courts should have the first opportunity to review the claim and provide any necessary relief. Williams, 529 U.S. at 436-37 (citing O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 844).
In order for a petitioner to have this opportunity to adjudicate federal rights, a prisoner must therefore be diligent in developing the record and presenting all claims of constitutional error. Id. Diligence requires that a prisoner make a reasonable attempt to investigate and pursue the claims in state court, and diligence does not depend on whether these efforts could have been successful. Id. at 435. At a minimum, a petitioner must seek an evidentiary hearing in state court in the manner proscribed by state law. Id. at 437. However, where a petitioner has diligently sought to develop the factual basis of a claim in state court and the court fails to resolve a factual issue on which the habeas petition rests, an evidentiary hearing is not barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2554(e). Campbell v. Vaughn, 209 F.3d 280, 286 (3d Cir. 2000).
An applicant who fails to develop the factual basis of a claim is barred from an evidentiary hearing unless the statute's other stringent requirements are met. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2554(e)(2), a district court can hold an evidentiary hearing even if the petitioner failed to develop the factual basis of a claim if it relies on a new rule of constitutional law or a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through due diligence. Additionally, the facts underlying the claim should be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence "that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense." 28 U.S.C. § 2554(e)(2)(B).
In this case, Chippero's trial counsel: argued against Dr. DeForest's qualification as an expert, objected to Dr. DeForest's trial testimony about the sneakers, and objected to Dr. DeForest's sneaker transparency. (ECF No. 22-8 at 16-17, 44-46.)
On direct appeal, Chippero claimed Dr. DeForest should not have been permitted to use an overlay of the sneakers to explain his opinion. (ECF No. 12-2 at 66-70.) The New Jersey Appellate Division rejected this claim. (ECF No. 17-4 at 15-16.) Chippero raised this issue in his petition for certification (ECF No. 17-5), which was denied (ECF No. 18).
Chippero's PCR petition sought, inter alia, "an evidentiary hearing on this matter . . . [as to] defense counsel's ineffective assistance." (ECF No. 18-1 at 26.) The PCR trial court rejected Chippero's claim for an evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 22-8 at 47.) The PCR appellate court affirmed. (ECF No. 19-2 at 6-7.)
If there was any issue to explore as to "the admissibility of the dubious footprint evidence" such as Chippero alleges in the Petition (ECF No. 7 at 60), he had every opportunity to do so, not only at his Second Trial, but also on collateral review in state court. Since Chippero failed to develop the factual basis of his Footprint Admissibility Claim in a state court proceeding and does not allege that his claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law or factual predicate, this Court is barred from holding an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2554(e)(2).
Furthermore, given that Grounds One through Six of the Petition are denied on the merits for the reasons explained at length in this Opinion, there is no basis for an evidentiary hearing on them.
Accordingly, Ground Seven of the Petition is
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken from a final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A certificate of appealability may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). "A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
Here, Chippero has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Accordingly, the certificate of appealability is
For the foregoing reasons, the § 2254 habeas petition is
(ECF No. 16 at 14-15.)
(ECF No. 13-4 at 7-8.)
Leonard Falabella and his wife Barbara Traube lived across the street from Tocci. Falabella knew Chippero. When he and his wife saw the police vehicles, they went outside with their dogs. About a half hour after the police arrived, Chippero came across the street to play with the dogs. Chippero told Falabella and Traube that the woman across the street had been stabbed. Falabella asked Chippero how he knew that. He replied that he had heard it over the police scanner. Traube corroborated her husband's testimony. According to her, Chippero told them that around 11:00 p.m. he had heard on the police scanner that Tocci had been "found in a puddle of blood, stabbed." (ECF No. 17-4 at 9-10.)
(ECF No. 22-1 at 50 (State's summation at the Second Trial).)
(ECF No. 22-1 at 50 (State's summation at the Second Trial).)
(ECF No. 7 at 39-55.)
