Turner v. Graham

Background

Following a 2015 New York state-court jury trial, Myrrheleki Turner was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He received an aggregate sentence of twenty years in prison. The charges arose from the March 11, 2014 shooting of Lucian Rogers at Donnellan Park in Harlem.

The prosecution relied heavily on eyewitness Evilla Roebuck. Roebuck had identified Turner as the shooter before trial, including before the grand jury, but at trial she said she was not sufficiently sure who fired the gun. The prosecutor presented evidence that people connected to Turner had tried to influence Roebuck, including by encouraging her to say she was unsure and offering her money. The trial court held a hearing under New York law and found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Turner had intimidated and threatened Roebuck. It therefore allowed Roebuck’s grand jury testimony identifying Turner as the shooter to be admitted as substantive evidence.

Turner was convicted, and New York appellate courts upheld the admission of Roebuck’s testimony. In federal court, Turner sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a law allowing a federal court to challenge a state conviction when the custody violates federal law. He raised a Confrontation Clause claim and three ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims: that his lawyers did not call witnesses at the hearing about Roebuck’s intimidation, did not object to the prosecutor’s use of a pretrial photographic identification, and did not investigate or present an alibi defense.

Confrontation Clause claim

The Sixth Amendment generally gives a criminal defendant the right to question witnesses whose testimonial statements are used against him. But the Supreme Court recognizes a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception: a defendant who causes a witness’s absence or prevents the witness from testifying may lose that right.

Judge Cronan held that the state courts reasonably applied this exception. The trial court had considered Turner’s recorded jail calls, Officer Carlos Pagan’s testimony, and its own observations of Roebuck. The recorded calls supported the finding that Turner directed others to influence Roebuck. Roebuck also testified that Black, who was related to Turner, urged her to say she was not sure who shot Rogers, and that Bird conveyed an offer of money on Black’s behalf.

Applying the highly deferential standard required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the court concluded that the state courts did not contradict or unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court law. The court also stated that Turner had not shown that the state court made an unreasonable factual determination. It denied habeas relief on the Confrontation Clause claim.

Ineffective assistance of counsel

To establish ineffective assistance, Turner had to show both that his lawyers’ performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that their errors probably affected the outcome. The federal court reviewed the state-court decisions under a doubly deferential standard, giving deference both to the state courts and to counsel’s strategic choices.

Failure to call witnesses at the hearing. Turner argued that his lawyers should have called Roebuck and other witnesses at the hearing concerning intimidation. The court rejected this claim because Roebuck had already testified about her intoxication and lack of fear at trial, and the trial judge relied on that testimony. Counsel made a deliberate decision not to call witnesses, and Turner did not show that this decision was unreasonable or caused prejudice.

Failure to object to photographic-identification impeachment. Turner argued that counsel should have objected when the prosecution used his pretrial photographic identification to challenge Roebuck’s trial testimony. The court assumed, without deciding, that an objection might have been proper under New York law. It nevertheless found no prejudice because Roebuck’s grand jury testimony identifying Turner was later admitted as substantive evidence, making it unlikely that excluding the photographic-identification impeachment would have changed the verdict.

Failure to investigate or present an alibi. Turner claimed that he was at his cousin William Smith’s home in the Bronx around the time of the shooting and that counsel should have investigated and presented this defense. A state court held an evidentiary hearing and rejected the claim after considering testimony from Turner, potential alibi witnesses, and Turner’s trial lawyers, along with surveillance video and Turner’s written statement to police.

Judge Cronan held that Turner had not shown that the state court’s factual findings were objectively unreasonable. The evidence was inconsistent about when Turner told his lawyers about the alibi, and Turner’s post-arrest statement placed him near Donnellan Park rather than at the Bronx home. The court further held that, even assuming counsel should have investigated or presented the alibi, Turner could not show prejudice. Roebuck’s grand jury testimony would still have been admitted, and Turner’s own statement would have seriously undermined the alibi.

Disposition

The court denied Turner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in its entirety. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Turner had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate pending motions and close the case.