Geeter v. Pollard

Background

Jamar Rashad Geeter sought federal relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from state convictions arising from conduct involving two minors. The opinion states that the evidence at trial included testimony about commercial sex acts, DNA evidence, evidence concerning locations associated with prostitution, and jail telephone calls. The trial court also admitted evidence of two prior uncharged arrests.

A jury convicted Geeter of numerous counts involving commercial sex trafficking, forcible rape and oral copulation, and pimping and pandering of two minors. The state appellate court affirmed the judgment in 2018, and the California Supreme Court denied review in January 2019. Geeter later pursued state and federal petitions. The federal court previously dismissed four claims as not cognizable or procedurally defaulted, leaving four claims for decision in this order.

Legal standard

The court applied the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a federal law that limits relief when a state court has already decided a claim on the merits. Under that standard, relief was available only if the state court’s decision contradicted clearly established United States Supreme Court law, unreasonably applied that law, or rested on an objectively unreasonable factual determination. State factual findings were presumed correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

Analysis

1. Jury instruction concerning Geeter’s testimony. The trial court instructed the jury that it could consider Geeter’s failure to explain or deny evidence if he reasonably could have been expected to do so, while emphasizing that this failure alone could not prove guilt. Geeter argued that the instruction violated his rights to testify and to receive a fair trial. The court concluded that the state appellate court reasonably rejected the claim. In particular, the state court identified Geeter’s failure to explain how one of his phone numbers appeared in a sex-work advertisement. The federal court also concluded that, even if the instruction had been erroneous, it did not have a substantial and harmful effect on the verdict.

2. Evidence of prior arrests. Geeter argued that admitting evidence of two prior arrests violated due process. The state appellate court determined that the evidence supported an inference of a general plan and that any possible error was harmless. The federal court agreed that the evidence had a permissible purpose and did not make the trial fundamentally unfair. It therefore denied this claim.

3. Detective’s opinion about a victim’s truthfulness. Detective Bray testified that he believed a victim’s statements were truthful after she became emotional during an interview. The state appellate court treated admission of the testimony as harmless error. The federal court agreed because the testimony repeated an earlier, unchallenged statement, the jury could assess the victim’s credibility directly, and other evidence substantially supported the prosecution’s case. The court denied this claim.

4. Cumulative error. Geeter argued that several errors, considered together, violated due process even if no single error was sufficient. The court rejected the claim because it found no constitutional error and therefore no cumulative prejudice. This claim was denied.

Disposition

The order states that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied because the four remaining claims lacked merit. In the conclusion, the court states that Geeter’s First Amended Petition was dismissed, directs the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the respondent, terminate the specified docket entry, and close the file. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.