Sistrunk v. Towns
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:24-cv-04054
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Sistrunk v. Towns, Judge Hellerstein denied Sistrunk’s petition, finding his jury-waiver challenge procedurally barred and, alternatively, meritless.
Eric Sistrunk, whose federal challenge to his state conviction and jury-trial waiver was denied.
What happened
Sistrunk v. Towns involved Eric Sistrunk’s federal petition challenging his state-court conviction. He argued that the trial court should not have accepted his choice of a judge-only trial because he had slept poorly and had fallen the night before.
The court said Sistrunk and his lawyer did not object when he waived a jury trial, so New York’s objection rule barred federal review. The court also considered the claim anyway and concluded that Sistrunk knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived a jury trial. The record showed that he repeatedly confirmed his choice, signed a written waiver, and was not taking medication or under its influence at the time.
Judge Hellerstein denied the petition in its entirety, declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability, and instructed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the case.
The detailed version
- Sistrunk v. Towns · No. 1:24-cv-04054
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Dec. 18, 2024
Background
Eric Sistrunk sought federal review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 of his state-court conviction. The opinion states that he was convicted after a bench retrial of third-degree rape, third-degree criminal sexual act, and second-degree unlawful imprisonment, and received concurrent sentences of four years’ imprisonment followed by five years of post-release supervision.
Sistrunk had previously been tried before a jury, but the jury could not reach a verdict. Before the retrial, he chose to be tried by a judge and waived his constitutional right to a jury trial. During an October 22, 2019 hearing, the trial judge questioned him about the decision. Sistrunk repeatedly said he wanted a bench trial, stated that no one was forcing him, confirmed that he understood the right he was giving up, and signed a written waiver. When asked whether he was thinking clearly, he said he had not slept for several days and had slipped and fallen the previous evening. He also said that medication had been prescribed, but confirmed that he was not taking it and was not under its influence at the hearing.
Federal Review
The New York State Appellate Division rejected Sistrunk’s direct appeal because he had not made a timely objection to the jury waiver in the trial court. This is called procedural default: a state procedural rule can prevent a federal court from reviewing a claim when the issue was not properly raised in state court. The federal court found that New York’s contemporaneous-objection rule was firmly established and regularly followed, and that neither Sistrunk nor his trial lawyer objected to the waiver.
The court also found that Sistrunk did not establish an exception to procedural default. He did not identify an outside factor that prevented his lawyer from objecting, did not claim ineffective assistance of counsel concerning the waiver, and did not claim actual innocence or show that refusing to review the issue would cause a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
Merits Analysis
The state appellate court had also ruled, alternatively, that Sistrunk’s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Judge Hellerstein agreed. Applying the deferential federal standard for reviewing state convictions, the court held that the state court’s decision was not contrary to, and did not unreasonably apply, clearly established United States Supreme Court law.
The court explained that the Constitution requires a jury waiver to be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, but does not require a particular on-the-record questioning process in every case. Here, Sistrunk’s repeated statements, his lawyer’s explanation of his reasoning, and his signed waiver supported the state court’s conclusion. The court also noted that Sistrunk cited no Supreme Court decision holding that poor sleep or a fall before the waiver invalidates a jury waiver.
Disposition
The court denied Sistrunk’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in its entirety. It declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Sistrunk had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The Clerk of Court was instructed to enter judgment dismissing the case.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.