Wilkins v. Lozano

Background

Keith M. Wilkins filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asking the federal court to overturn his state conviction. He proceeded without a lawyer. A San Francisco County jury acquitted him of first-degree murder but found him guilty of voluntary manslaughter for killing Frederick Glaspie, second-degree murder for killing Marche Daniels, and firearm-possession offenses. The federal petition challenged only the second-degree murder conviction involving Daniels.

Wilkins raised three claims: (1) the trial court improperly excluded proposed gang-expert testimony that he said was important to his imperfect-self-defense and heat-of-passion defenses; (2) the prosecutor misstated the legal standard for provocation during rebuttal argument; and (3) the combined effect of the alleged errors violated his right to a fair trial.

Claim 1: Excluded gang-expert testimony

Wilkins argued that a defense gang expert should have been allowed to testify about the victims’ gang affiliations, gang violence in the neighborhood, and the effects of gang violence on his perception of danger. The state trial court excluded the proposed testimony as not relevant, more prejudicial than probative, potentially misleading, and too time-consuming. The court left open the possibility of reconsidering the issue if Wilkins’s testimony made the evidence relevant, but the defense did not renew the request after he testified.

The California Court of Appeal found no error. It reasoned that Wilkins had already testified about his fear, his experiences with the victims, the neighborhood, and gang violence; other witnesses also provided related information. The appellate court further determined that the victims were unarmed, Daniels was walking away when Wilkins shot him, and any fear that gang members might arrive was not an imminent threat. It also concluded that the proposed testimony would not have changed the result.

The federal court applied the highly deferential federal standard for reviewing state-court convictions. It held that the United States Supreme Court had not clearly established a rule requiring admission of this kind of expert testimony. The court also stated that a claim based only on a violation of state evidence law cannot support federal relief. In addition, it agreed that the state court reasonably found the testimony cumulative, prejudicial, and not sufficiently relevant, and that Wilkins had not shown actual prejudice. Claim 1 was denied.

Claim 2: Prosecutorial misconduct

During rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that the jury could consider how other people at the house reacted and noted that they did not murder anyone. Wilkins argued that this misstated the law because the question was whether the provocation would have caused an average person to act rashly and from passion, not whether an average person would have committed murder.

The California Court of Appeal agreed that the prosecutor’s statement was improper because it focused on the defendant’s conduct rather than his mental state. But it found no prejudice. The jury received legally correct instructions on provocation and heat of passion, and the trial court told jurors to follow the court’s instructions if an attorney said something different. The appellate court also concluded that the statement did not make the trial fundamentally unfair or make a more favorable result reasonably probable.

The federal court held that the state court’s decision was reasonable under the federal standard. It concluded that, considering the correct jury instructions, the court’s reminder that its instructions controlled, and the strong evidence supporting the convictions, the prosecutor’s misstatement did not have a substantial and harmful effect on the verdict. Claim 2 was denied.

Claim 3: Cumulative error

Wilkins argued that the combined effect of the alleged errors violated due process. The federal court held that no individual constitutional error had been established, so there was no constitutional error to accumulate. Claim 3 was denied.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied all claims in the petition. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the claims should have been resolved differently. The court stated that Wilkins could seek a certificate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The clerk was ordered to terminate pending motions and close the case.