Crawford v. Capra
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-08574
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Crawford v. Capra, Judge Failla denied Crawford a certificate of appealability because neither proposed habeas issue warranted further review.
Bartholomew Crawford was denied permission to appeal the earlier denial of his federal habeas petition; the respondent, Michael Capra, opposed the request.
What happened
In Crawford v. Capra, the court had previously denied Bartholomew Crawford’s petition challenging his conviction under the federal habeas statute. Crawford then asked for permission to appeal that decision.
Crawford raised two proposed appeal questions: whether the court could use a clear-error standard when reviewing objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, and whether evidence of his DNA on a movable object was enough to support his conviction.
Judge Failla denied Crawford’s request for a certificate of appealability. She concluded that Crawford had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Crawford v. Capra · No. 1:20-cv-08574
- Katherine Failla
- May 19, 2022
Background
On April 4, 2022, the court adopted in full Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron’s report and recommendation and denied Bartholomew Crawford’s petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenged the state appellate court’s decision upholding Crawford’s conviction.
Crawford later moved for a certificate of appealability, or COA. A COA is court permission required for a habeas petitioner to appeal. Crawford asked the court to allow appellate review of two issues.
Issues Raised
First, Crawford argued that the Second Circuit should consider whether a district court may apply clear-error review to contested objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Constitution.
Second, he argued that the Second Circuit should consider whether the mere presence of a defendant’s DNA on a movable object at a crime scene is insufficient to sustain a conviction unless the government shows that the DNA was left during the crime.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that a COA may issue only when the applicant makes a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. In practical terms, the applicant must show that reasonable judges could debate whether the habeas petition was resolved differently or that the issues deserve further review.
As to the first issue, the court said that its earlier order found no error—much less clear error—in the magistrate judge’s recommendation. It also agreed that using a more searching, de novo review would not have changed the result.
As to the DNA issue, the court agreed with the respondent’s arguments that reasonable judges could not debate the court’s conclusion. The court had determined that the state appellate court’s decision affirming Crawford’s conviction was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Crawford’s request for a certificate of appealability because he had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed at docket entry 38.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.