Goldman v. Mills

Background

Reginald Goldman filed a petition for a federal court review of his state conviction on August 27, 2021. He later applied for appointment of counsel, stating that he could not afford or otherwise obtain a lawyer. The opinion notes that Goldman had previously been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees by the New York Appellate Division, although he did not submit supporting evidence of his inability to afford counsel in this case.

Goldman identified four grounds in his petition: that his lawyer was improperly excluded from a hearing concerning a DNA search warrant; that a YouTube video was not properly authenticated and was more prejudicial than probative; that a police officer was improperly allowed to testify as an expert on gang language; and that the prosecution failed to establish probable cause for the DNA warrant.

State-Court Proceedings

The opinion recounts that the New York Court of Appeals reversed an earlier Appellate Division ruling, rejected the challenge to the DNA evidence, determined that the YouTube video was sufficiently authenticated, and sent the case back to the Appellate Division. On remand, the Appellate Division ruled that Goldman had not preserved his constitutional challenge to the police officer’s testimony and that any error would have been harmless. It also found that the DNA warrant was supported by probable cause and that the YouTube video was properly admitted.

Appointment-of-Counsel Standard

The court explained that a person seeking federal review of a state conviction has no constitutional right to a lawyer in that proceeding. The court may appoint counsel when the person cannot obtain adequate representation and the interests of justice require it. Under the standard applied by the Second Circuit, the court first considers whether the claims appear likely to have substance. If they do, it considers factors such as the person’s ability to investigate the facts, the need for cross-examination, the person’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether an evidentiary hearing is needed.

Ruling

Judge Ona T. Wang denied Goldman’s motion for appointment of counsel. The court found that his position was not likely to have substance because the grounds in his petition had already been reviewed and rejected by the New York Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division. The court also found that Goldman had raised no new arguments, that briefing was complete, that the issues were not complicated, and that the petition could be addressed using the parties’ written submissions and the existing record. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the filing related to the counsel request. The order ruled on appointment of counsel, not on the underlying petition itself.