Pena v. Dickhaut, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Pena v. Dickhaut, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/16

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1193

YODERNY PENA,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

THOMAS DI CKHAUT,

Respondent , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Rya W. Zobel , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, Sel ya, and St ahl ,Ci r cui t J udges.

Davi d Rossman f or appel l ant .Amy L. Karangeki s, Assi st ant At t orney Gener al , wi t h whom

Mart ha Coakl ey, At t orney Gener al of Massachuset t s, was on br i ef ,f or appel l ee.

November 22, 2013


2/16

STAHL, Circuit Judge. Pet i t i oner Yoder ny Pena was

convi ct ed of f i r st - degr ee mur der i n Massachuset t s st at e cour t .

Af t er t he st at e cour t uphel d hi s convi ct i on on appeal , Pena f i l ed

a pet i t i on f or a wr i t of habeas cor pus i n f eder al di st r i ct cour t ,

based on al l eged vi ol at i ons of hi s Fi f t h and Si xt h Amendment

r i ght s. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he pet i t i on. For t he f ol l owi ng

r easons, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on.

I. Facts & Background

On Mar ch 8, 2004, Pena ki l l ed hi s gi r l f r i end by st abbi ng

her f i f t y- one t i mes. Fi ve mont hs l at er , he t ur ned hi msel f i n t o t he

pol i ce. At t r i al , Pena acknowl edged t hat he had ki l l ed t he vi ct i m.

The def ense cont ended, however , t hat Pena was mental l y i mpai r ed at

t he t i me of t he mur der and t her ef ore i ncapabl e of f ormi ng t he

ment al st at e r equi r ed t o commi t f i r st - degr ee mur der .

The def ense' s onl y wi t ness was Dr . Rebecca Br endel , a

psychi at r i st , who t est i f i ed t o Pena' s ment al i l l ness based on her

r evi ew of Pena' s medi cal r ecords and i nt er vi ews she had wi t h Pena

and hi s si st er . Rel yi ng on her r ecor d r evi ew and obser vat i ons, she

"concl uded t hat ' Pena suf f er ed f r om a chr oni c and sever e ment al

i l l ness on t he day of t he ki l l i ng' " and "expr essed ' ser i ous doubt '

whet her Pena coul d f or mt he i nt ent r equi r ed f or f i r st - degr ee mur der

on t he day he ki l l ed hi s gi r l f r i end. " Pena v. Di ckhaut , No. 09-

12204- RWZ, 2013 WL 140262, at *3 ( D. Mass. J an. 11, 2013) .

-2-


3/16

Dr . Br endel ' s t est i mony di d not convi nce t he j ur y, whi ch

r et ur ned a ver di ct of f i r st - degr ee mur der based on del i ber at e

pr emedi t at i on and on ext r eme at r oci t y or cr uel t y. The cour t deni ed

Pena' s mot i on f or a new t r i al , and t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t of

Massachuset t s ( "SJ C" ) uphel d t he convi ct i on on appeal . Ther eaf t er ,

Pena f i l ed a pet i t i on f or wr i t of habeas cor pus i n f eder al cour t . 1

Hi s or i gi nal habeas pet i t i on r ai sed seven i ssues, but

Pena abandoned al l but t wo of t hemi n t he br i ef he submi t t ed t o t he

di st r i ct cour t , i n whi ch he ar gued t hat t he pr osecut or i mpr oper l y

comment ed on hi s f ai l ur e t o t est i f y i n vi ol at i on of t he Fi f t h

Amendment . He al so r ai sed a cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

counsel on t he basi s t hat hi s at t or ney i nadver t ent l y f ai l ed t o

pr oduce cer t ai n medi cal r ecor ds t o t he pr osecut i on dur i ng

di scover y, whi ch pr event ed her f r om quest i oni ng Dr . Br endel about

t hem at t r i al . Pena r ai sed, and t he SJ C r ej ect ed, bot h of t hese

ar gument s on di r ect r evi ew. The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat t he SJ C' s

det er mi nat i on of t hese i ssues was not unr easonabl e and deni ed t he

pet i t i on f or habeas rel i ef .

1 I t does not appear t hat Pena pur sued any post - convi ct i on

r el i ef at t he st at e cour t l evel . As t he di st r i ct cour t obser ved,however , "Respondent does not cont end t hat any pr ocedur al barspr event r eachi ng t he mer i t s of Pena' s cl ai ms. I t appear s t hat t hecl ai ms wer e pr oper l y exhaust ed and Pena' s pet i t i on was t i mel yf i l ed. " Pena, 2013 WL 140262, at *2 n. 3. Accor di ngl y, we wi l l notaddr ess whet her t he absence of st ate post - convi ct i on pr oceedi ngspr ocedur al l y bar s Pena' s f eder al habeas pet i t i on.

-3-


4/16

II. Analysis

Under t he Ant i t er r or i sm and Ef f ect i ve Deat h Penal t y Act

of 1996 ( "AEDPA") , a habeas pet i t i oner must show t hat t he

chal l enged st at e cour t adj udi cat i on was " cont r ar y t o, or i nvol ved

an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of , cl ear l y est abl i shed Feder al l aw, as

det er mi ned by t he Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St ates, " or t hat t he

deci si on "was based on an unr easonabl e det er mi nat i on of t he f act s. "

28 U. S. C. 2254( d) ( 1) ( 2) ; see al so Mor gan v. Di ckhaut , 677 F. 3d

39, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . I n t hi s cont ext , "unr easonabl e" means

"some i ncr ement of i ncorr ect ness beyond er r or . " Morgan, 677 F. 3d

at 46 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Thi s st andar d i s "hi ghl y

def er ent i al " t o t he st at e cour t . Bur t v. Ti t l ow, 571 U. S. - - - ,

2013 WL 5904117, at *4 ( Nov. 5, 2013) ( per cur i am) . I t r equi r es

t he pet i t i oner t o "show t hat t he st at e cour t ' s r ul i ng on t he cl ai m

bei ng pr esent ed i n f eder al cour t was so l acki ng i n j ust i f i cat i on

t hat t her e was an er r or . . . beyond any possi bi l i t y f or f ai r mi nded

di sagr eement . " I d. ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mark omi t t ed) .

"A di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o deny or gr ant a habeas

pet i t i on under 28 U. S. C. 2254 i s subj ect t o de novo r evi ew. "

Mor gan, 677 F. 3d at 46. Accor di ngl y, l i ke t he di st r i ct cour t , we

must det er mi ne whet her t he st ate cour t ' s deci si on was unr easonabl e

under t he st andar d set f or t h i n AEDPA. St ephens v. Hal l , 294 F. 3d

210, 217 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .

-4-


5/16

A. Fifth Amendment Violation

Pena ar gues t hat t he st at e cour t pr oceedi ngs vi ol at ed t he

Fi f t h Amendment because t he prosecut or i mproper l y comment ed on

Pena' s f ai l ure t o t est i f y. I t i s wel l - set t l ed t hat the Fi f t h

Amendment " f orbi ds . . . comment by t he prosecut i on on t he

accused' s si l ence. " Gomes v. Br ady, 564 F. 3d 532, 537 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Gr i f f i n v. Cal i f or ni a, 380

U. S. 609, 615 ( 1965) ) . To det er mi ne whet her a pet i t i oner i s

ent i t l ed t o col l at er al r el i ef , "[ f ] i r st , we det er mi ne whet her t he

comment of f ended t he Fi f t h Amendment by i nsi nuat i ng i mproper l y t hat

[ t he def endant ' s] f ai l ur e t o t est i f y was evi dence of gui l t . " I d.

( ci t i ng Gr i f f i n, 380 U. S. at 615) . "Second, we ascer t ai n whet her

t he comment had a ' subst ant i al and i nj ur i ous ef f ect or i nf l uence i n

det er mi ni ng t he j ur y' s ver di ct ' such t hat r ever sal i s war r ant ed. "

I d. ( quot i ng Br echt v. Abr ahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 623 ( 1993) ) .

I n i t s cl osi ng ar gument , t he pr osecut i on addr essed t he

def ense' s argument t hat t here was no evi dence of mot i ve:

Two peopl e ar e cl ose t o each ot her , t hey have an ar gumentand one of t hem ends up dead. Wel l , one of t hem wi l lnever be abl e t o t el l us why i t happened, wi l l she?Cel i nes Car abel l o, obvi ousl y, can never t el l us. Thedef endant i s t he onl y one who knows why he di d i t . He' st he onl y one who knows why he got so enr aged t hat he hadt o ki l l - -

At t hi s poi nt , def ense counsel obj ect ed and t he cour t

sust ai ned t he obj ect i on. The pr osecut or cont i nued wi t h hi s cl osi ng

-5-


6/16

argument , and i mmedi atel y af t er he concl uded t he cour t i ssued t he

f ol l owi ng cur at i ve i nst r ucti on t o t he j ur y:

Member s of t he j ur y, counsel st at ed t hat t he def endant i st he onl y one who knows, made ref erence i n t hat r egard.

The def endant , as I wi l l i nst r uct you l at er , has anabsol ut e r i ght not t o t est i f y i n t hi s case, and i t i si mpr oper t o comment on t hat r i ght t o r emai n si l ent . Youar e t o di sr egar d t hat por t i on of t he pr osecut or ' s cl osi ngar gument .

Dur i ng j ur y i nst r uct i ons, t he cour t agai n emphasi zed t hat Pena had

an "absol ut e r i ght not t o t est i f y, " and i nst r uct ed t he j ur y "not t o

dr aw any adver se i nf erence agai nst t he def endant because he di d not

t est i f y. "

On di r ect appeal , t he SJ C f ound t hat t he i mpr opr i et y of

t he pr osecut or ' s r emark was a cl ose quest i on, but concl uded t hat

" t he pr osecut or di d not i nt end hi s comment t o be under st ood as a

comment on Pena' s f ai l ur e t o t est i f y . . . . " Commonweal t h v.

Pena, 913 N. E. 2d 815, 829 ( Mass. 2009) . The SJ C al so f ound t hat

" t he j udge' s pr ompt and t horough i nst r uct i ons her e wer e

suf f i ci ent l y cl ear and compl et e t o negat e any possi bl e pr ej udi ce t o

t he def endant . " I d. at 830 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

On habeas r evi ew, t he di st r i ct cour t r emarked t hat t he

quest i on of t he comment ' s i mpr opr i et y was i ndeed cl ose, and "[ i ] f

[ i t ] wer e deci di ng t he i ssue i n t he f i r st i nst ance, [ i t ] mi ght

r each a di f f er ent concl usi on. " Pena, 2013 WL 140262, at *6. But

under t he def er ent i al st andar d of 2254( d) , t he di st r i ct cour t

concl uded t hat t he SJ C' s hol di ng was not "cont r ar y t o, or an

-6-


7/16

unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of , " f eder al l aw. I d. Mor eover , t he

di st r i ct cour t agr eed wi t h t he SJ C t hat any er r or was har ml ess.

I d. I t obser ved t hat "[ t ] he r ef er ence t o Pena' s si l ence was br i ef

and i mmedi at el y i nt er r upt ed by obj ect i on; i t di d not f or m a maj or

t heme of t he pr osecut or ' s ar gument " ; and the cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons

t o t he j ur y wer e pr ompt and t hor ough. I d. Accor di ngl y, t he

di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat "Pena has f ai l ed t o show t hat t he er r or

had a ' subst ant i al and i nj ur i ous ef f ect or i nf l uence' on t he

ver di ct agai nst hi m. " I d. ( quot i ng Br echt , 507 U. S. at 623) .

The di st r i ct cour t was cor r ect on bot h poi nt s. The f act

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di sagr eed wi t h t he SJ C on t he pr opr i et y of

t he r emar k does not mean t he SJ C' s det ermi nat i on was unr easonabl e

f or t he pur poses of 2254 r evi ew. I n f act , t hi s cour t has

expl ai ned t hat "i f i t i s a cl ose quest i on whet her t he st at e

deci si on i s i n er r or , t hen t he st at e deci si on cannot be an

unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw. " Mor gan, 677 F. 3d at 47

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Under t he def er ent i al st andar d

of 2254( d) , t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y al l owed t he SJ C' s

deci si on t o st and.

Fur t her more, we agr ee wi t h both t he SJ C and t he di st r i ct

cour t t hat t he er r or , i f any, was har ml ess. "Thi s cour t has

r epeat edl y hel d t hat a st r ong, expl i ci t and t hor ough cur at i ve

i nst r uct i on to di sr egar d i mpr oper comment s by t he pr osecut or i s

suf f i ci ent t o cur e any pr ej udi ce f r om pr osecut or i al mi sconduct . "

-7-


8/16

Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 675 F. 3d 48, 63 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( ci t i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Ri cci o, 529 F. 3d 40, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ) . The

cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons her e wer e mor e t han suf f i ci ent . I ndeed, we

have f ound t hat even wi t hout a cont emporaneous curat i ve

i nst r uct i on, st andar d j ur y i nst r uct i ons al one can be suf f i ci ent t o

mi t i gat e t he prej udi ce of an i mproper comment i f t he comment was an

" i sol at ed i nst ance of mi sconduct " and t he evi dence agai nst t he

def endant was "compel l i ng. " Gomes, 564 F. 3d at 5389. Here, as

t he di st r i ct cour t poi nt ed out , t he chal l enged comment was br i ef

and qui ckl y i nt er r upt ed, and t he pr osecut i on' s case r est ed on t he

subst ant i al evi dence i t pr esent ed at t r i al , not on an i mper mi ssi bl e

i nf er ence dr awn f r om Pena' s si l ence. Gi ven t he st r engt h of t he

cour t ' s cur at i ve i nst r uct i ons, we f i nd t he al l eged er r or t o be

har ml ess under t hese ci r cumst ances. We t her ef or e af f i r m t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s hol di ng r egar di ng t he Fi f t h Amendment cl ai m.

B. Sixth Amendment Violation

Pena cl ai ms t hat hi s at t or ney' s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance at

t r i al depr i ved hi m of hi s Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o counsel . To

succeed on t hi s cl ai m, Pena "must demonst r ate both: ( 1) t hat

' counsel ' s per f or mance was def i ci ent , ' meani ng t hat ' counsel made

er r or s so ser i ous t hat counsel was not f unct i oni ng as t he "counsel "

guarant eed t he def endant by the Si xt h Amendment ' ; and ( 2) ' t hat t he

def i ci ent per f or mance pr ej udi ced t he def ense. ' " Uni t ed St at es v.

-8-


9/16

Val er i o, 676 F. 3d 237, 246 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng St r i ckl and v.

Washi ngt on, 466 U. S. 668, 687 ( 1984) ) .

To demonst r at e "def i ci ent per f or mance, " Pena "must show

t hat hi s t r i al counsel ' s repr esent at i on f el l bel ow an obj ect i ve

st andar d of r easonabl eness. " Rodr i guez, 675 F. 3d at 56 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Thi s "hi ghl y def er ent i al " standar d

r equi r es Pena t o "over come t he pr esumpt i on t hat . . . t he

chal l enged act i on mi ght be consi der ed sound t r i al st r at egy. " I d.

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . A l awyer ' s per f or mance i s const i t ut i onal l y def i ci ent

"onl y wher e, gi ven t he f act s known at t he t i me, counsel ' s choi ce

was so pat ent l y unr easonabl e t hat no competent at t orney woul d have

made i t . " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

"To demonst r at e ' pr ej udi ce, ' [ Pena] must show ' a

r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but f or counsel ' s unpr of essi onal

er r or s, t he r esul t of t he pr oceedi ng woul d have been di f f er ent . ' "

I d. at 57 ( quot i ng Por t er v. McCol l um, 558 U. S. 30, 3839 ( 2009) ) .

"Consequent l y, we must consi der , on whol e- r ecor d r evi ew, whether

t he t r i al mi ght have ended di f f er ent l y absent t he l awyer ' s

bl under . " Ouber v. Guar i no, 293 F. 3d 19, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .

The Supreme Cour t r ecent l y expl ai ned t hat when a f eder al

cour t r evi ews an i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai m under

2254, i t must use a "doubl y def er ent i al st andar d of r evi ew t hat

gi ves bot h t he st ate cour t and t he def ense at t or ney the benef i t of

-9-


10/16

t he doubt . " Bur t , 2013 WL 5904117, at *2 ( i nt er nal quot at i on marks

omi t t ed) ; see al so Mor gan, 677 F. 3d at 47 ( " [ H] abeas r evi ew

i nvol ves t he l ayer i ng of t wo st andar ds. The habeas quest i on of

whet her t he st at e cour t deci si on i s obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e i s

l ayer ed on t op of t he under l yi ng st andar d gover ni ng t he

const i t ut i onal r i ght asser t ed. ") ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Thi s i s an ext r emel y di f f i cul t st andar d t o meet , and

Pena has f ai l ed t o do so her e.

1. The Testimony of Dr. Brendel and the Holy

Family Hospital Records

Pena' s Si xth Amendment cl ai m i s based on hi s counsel ' s

f ai l ur e t o ent er i nt o evi dence r ecor ds of Pena' s hospi t al i zat i on at

Hol y Fami l y Hospi t al ( "HFH" ) i n August 2004. Al t hough Dr . Br endel

r evi ewed t hese r ecor ds i n pr epar at i on f or her t est i mony, Pena' s

counsel i nadver t ent l y f ai l ed t o pr oduce t hem t o t he pr osecut i on

dur i ng di scover y. Ther ef or e, t he pr osecut or successf ul l y obj ect ed

t o Dr . Br endel ' s t est i mony regardi ng t he HFH r ecords and t he cour t

st r uck t hat por t i on of her t est i mony f r om t he r ecor d.

Dr . Br endel ' s t est i mony was based on Pena' s medi cal

r ecords goi ng back t o 1996, as wel l as i nt er vi ews she conduct ed

wi t h Pena and hi s si st er . Dr . Br endel t est i f i ed t hat , begi nni ng i n

1996 i n t he Domi ni can Republ i c, Pena was di agnosed wi t h bi pol ar

di sorder wi t h psychot i c f eat ur es and t r eat ed f or sympt oms of sever e

depr essi on and psychosi s. He al so had pr obl ems wi t h dr ug and

al cohol abuse at t hat t i me. I n 1999, he was commi t t ed t o a

-10-


11/16

hospi t al and gi ven el ect r oconvul si ve ther apy and ant i psychot i c

medi cat i ons.

Pena moved t o t he Uni t ed Stat es i n 2002, wher e he

cont i nued t o exper i ence pr obl ems wi t h ment al heal t h and subst ance

abuse. I n 2003, a doctor at Bost on Medi cal Cent er di agnosed hi m

wi t h r ecur r ent maj or depr essi on and pr escr i bed sever al medi cat i ons.

He saw a soci al worker f i ve days bef ore t he mur der , who not ed

depressi ve sympt oms and poor memor y and concent r at i on.

Af t er t he mur der , but shor t l y bef or e Pena t ur ned hi msel f

i n, he went t o a pol i ce st at i on compl ai ni ng t hat voi ces i n hi s head

wer e t el l i ng hi mt o hur t hi msel f . He was r ef er r ed t o HFH, wher e he

was hospi t al i zed f or seven days. The r ecor ds f r om t hat

hospi t al i zat i on i ncl ude a di agnosi s of "psychot i c di sor der , not

ot her wi se speci f i ed, " and conf i r m t hat Pena went t o a pol i ce

st at i on seeki ng hel p f or audi t or y hal l uci nat i ons. The r ecor ds not e

t hat Pena "does not appear t o be a r el i abl e hi st or i an, " and expl ai n

t hat "i t i s di f f i cul t t o det er mi ne whet her hi s r esponses ar e due t o

cogni t i ve i mpai r ment or pl anned evasi veness and avoi dance, or one

posi ng as a ment al pat i ent . " They f ur t her st at e t hat "[ t ] her e i s

a suspi ci on of bei ng pur posel y avoi dant and vague on account of hi s

i l l egal [ i mmi gr at i on] stat us. "

Once Pena was i n cust ody f or t he murder , he was eval uat ed

at Br i dgewat er St at e Hospi t al f or compet ence t o st and t r i al . The

r epor t f r om Br i dgewat er i ndi cat ed a "hi gh suspi ci on t hat Pena was

-11-


12/16

f ei gni ng memor y pr obl ems. " I n t hei r i nt er vi ews wi t h Dr . Br endel

pr i or t o t r i al , bot h Pena and hi s si st er r epor t ed t hat he had been

exper i enci ng sympt oms of ment al i l l ness i n t he per i od l eadi ng up t o

t he mur der . Pena al so t ol d Dr . Br endel t hat he had not sl ept f or

t hr ee ni ght s pr i or t o t he mur der and had been usi ng cocai ne,

mar i j uana, and al cohol .

Dur i ng the cour se of Dr . Br endel ' s t est i mony, Pena' s

counsel asked about t he HFH r ecor ds. Dr . Br endel r esponded t hat :

[ I ] n t hose r ecor ds, t here was some concern about Mr .Pena' s di f f i cul t y wi t h memor y and bei ng abl e to gi ve anaccur at e hi st or y. The di schar ge di agnosi s i ncl uded adi agnosi s of psychosi s not ot her wi se speci f i ed. So, t hephysi ci ans i n t he hospi t al di d obser ve hi m at some t i medur i ng t he hospi t al i zat i on t o be suf f er i ng f r ompsychot i csympt oms.

At t hat poi nt , t he pr osecut or obj ect ed on the gr ounds t hat Pena had

not produced t he HFH r ecor ds i n di scover y. He di d not appear

opposed t o t he admi ssi on of t he r ecords i nt o evi dence, but he

st at ed, "I ' d l i ke t o see t hem, at t he ver y l east . I f not , I ask

t hat t he answer be st r i cken. " Pena' s counsel r esponded t hat " i f

t hey wer en' t pr ovi ded, i t was i nadver t ent l y t hat t hey wer en' t

pr ovi ded. And I don' t have any more quest i ons about t hese

r ecor ds. " The cour t deci ded t o st r i ke Dr . Br endel ' s answer

r egardi ng the HFH r ecor ds, and Pena' s counsel of f ered no ar gument

agai nst t he cour t ' s deci si on.

-12-


13/16

2. Application of Strickland to the Omissionof the HFH Records

On di r ect appeal , t he SJ C r ej ect ed Pena' s argument t hat

hi s counsel ' s f ai l ur e t o pr oduce t he HFH r ecor ds and i nt r oduce t hem

i nt o evi dence const i t ut ed i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel . I t

deci ded that "even had t he Hol y Fami l y Hospi t al r ecords been

of f ered and admi t t ed i n evi dence, t hey merel y woul d have been

cumul at i ve of ot her t est i mony of f er ed by Dr . Br endel , a hi ghl y

qual i f i ed psychi at r i st . " Pena, 913 N. E. 2d at 831. I t al so hel d

t hat "counsel ' s f ai l ur e t o of f er t he r ecor ds i n evi dence ( or t o

make an of f er of pr oof wi t h t hem when a si ngl e answer of Dr .

Br endel ' s was st r uck) was pl ai nl y a st r at egi c deci si on t hat was not

mani f est l y unr easonabl e, " par t i cul ar l y i n vi ew of t he f act t hat t he

r ecor ds cont ai ned i nf or mat i on that was pot ent i al l y har mf ul t o Pena.

I d. at 832. On habeas revi ew, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat t he

SJ C' s resol ut i on of t hi s cl ai m was r easonabl e. Pena, 2013 WL

140262, at *45.

Pena ar gues on appeal t hat t he SJ C' s det er mi nat i on of t he

Si xt h Amendment cl ai m was unr easonabl e, because of t he i mpor t ance

of t he HFH r ecords t o Pena' s def ense. I n Pena' s vi ew, " t he way

t hi s case was pr esent ed t o t he j ur y r evol ved ar ound whet her Dr .

Br endel had an adequate basi s f or t he opi ni ons she gave concer ni ng

Mr . Pena' s ment al st ate at t he t i me of t he mur der . " The pr osecut or

at t acked Dr . Br endel ' s credi bi l i t y on t he gr ounds t hat "al l of t he

f act s about Mr . Pena' s ment al i l l ness on whi ch she r el i ed came f r om

-13-


14/16

t he mout h of Mr . Pena hi msel f , [ and] wer e t her ef or e sel f servi ng .

. . . " But , accor di ng t o Pena, t he HFH r ecor ds wer e uni que i n t hi s

r espect , because t here was no ot her document at i on t hat Pena went t o

a pol i ce st at i on compl ai ni ng of voi ces i n hi s head. The HFH

r ecor ds t her ef or e of f er ed t he "onl y evi dence t hat woul d have

di r ect l y count ered t he at t ack t hat t he pr osecut or made on her

credi bi l i t y. " The f act t hat he went t o a pol i ce st at i on t o r epor t

voi ces i n hi s head demonst r at es obj ect i vel y and concl usi vel y, Pena

ar gues, t hat he was ment al l y i l l at t he t i me of t he mur der , because

" [ n] o one who i s a f ugi t i ve i n a mur der case i s goi ng t o go to a

pol i ce st at i on and ask f or hel p f r om myst er i ous voi ces unl ess t he

voi ces ar e act ual l y dr ummi ng thei r dest r uct i ve message i nt o t he

t ar get ' s br ai n. "

Ther ef or e, accor di ng t o Pena, t he HFH r ecor ds wer e not

cumul at i ve, because t hey of f er ed uni quel y obj ect i ve evi dence of

Pena' s ment al i l l ness. For t he same r eason, t he f ai l ur e of Pena' s

t r i al counsel t o i nt r oduce t hem i nt o t he r ecor d had t o be

pr ej udi ci al " [ i ] t was t he onl y evi dence t hat pr ovi ded ext er nal

ver i f i cat i on f or t he i nf or mat i on on whi ch Dr . Br endel r el i ed. "

Pena argues f ur t her t hat no compet ent at t orney woul d make t he

st r at egi c deci si on t o omi t such per suasi ve evi dence f r om t he

r ecor d, and t hat i n f act Pena' s at t or ney never made t hat choi ce.

I nst ead, as Pena reads t he r ecor d, hi s at t or ney f ul l y i nt ended t o

el i ci t t est i mony about t he r ecor ds, r egar dl ess of t he pot ent i al l y

-14-


15/16

damagi ng i nf ormat i on i n t hem about Pena' s memory pr obl ems and

possi bl e evasi veness. She decl i ned t o go f or war d wi t h her

quest i oni ng onl y when her i nadver t ent f ai l ur e t o pr oduce came t o

l i ght , not because of any r easoned assessment of t he evi dence.

For t wo reasons, we do not bel i eve t hat t he HFH r ecor ds

wer e as concl usi ve as Pena por t r ays t hem. Fi r st , Pena t ur ned

hi msel f i n f or t he mur der shor t l y af t er hi s hospi t al i zat i on at

HFH, 2 and hi s medi cal hi st or y i ncl udes mul t i pl e r ef er ences t o

possi bl e decept i on on hi s par t ei t her f ei gni ng memor y l oss or

gi vi ng evasi ve answer s. A j ur y coul d concl ude, t her ef or e, t hat

Pena was f al sel y repor t i ng t he voi ces i n hi s head t o pr ovi de a

def ense f or t he mur der he had commi t t ed. Pena di smi sses t hi s

possi bi l i t y as f ar - f et ched, because a r at i onal f ugi t i ve woul d never

r i sk wal ki ng i nt o a pol i ce st at i on j ust t o f ei gn i l l ness. But t he

f act t hat Pena t ur ned hi msel f i n f or t he mur der a shor t t i me l at er

makes i t quest i onabl e t hat he f eared appr ehensi on by the pol i ce at

t hat t i me. I ndeed, he may have been pl anni ng i t .

A second pr obl em i s t hat t her e i s a f i ve- mont h gap

between t he mur der and t he HFH hospi t al i zat i on. Even i f t he HFH

r ecor ds wer e concl usi ve pr oof of ment al i l l ness at t hat t i me, t hey

woul d not prove t hat he was suf f er i ng any symptoms at t he t i me of

t he mur der . Dr . Br endel speci f i cal l y t est i f i ed t hat Pena' s

2 Pena was hospi t al i zed at HFH August 3- 10, 2004. Hesur r ender ed t o t he pol i ce on August 27. Pena, 913 N. E. 2d at 822.

-15-


16/16

sympt oms of ment al i l l ness " wax and wane"; t heref ore, she

expl ai ned, Pena coul d have been exper i enci ng ser i ous sympt oms at

t he t i me of t he murder , but not when he was eval uat ed at

Br i dgewat er . The same r easoni ng appl i es equal l y, however , i n t he

ot her di r ect i on: he coul d have been exper i enci ng symptoms whi l e at

HFH, but not at t he t i me of t he mur der .

For t hese r easons, we do not shar e Pena' s vi ew t hat t he

HFH r ecords have uni que and convi nci ng evi dent i ary val ue.

Ther ef or e, we concl ude t hat t he SJ C was r easonabl e i n deter mi ni ng

t hat t hei r omi ssi on was not pr ej udi ci al . Fur t her mor e, whet her or

not Pena' s t r i al counsel made a st r at egi c choi ce t o omi t t he

evi dence, 3 we do no thi nk t hi s i s an er r or "so ser i ous t hat counsel

was not f unct i oni ng as t he ' counsel ' guar ant eed t he def endant by

t he Si xth Amendment . " Val er i o, 676 F. 3d at 246. The f ai l ur e t o

i nt r oduce a si ngl e pi ece of evi dence of quest i onabl e val ue may

i ndeed seem l i ke a mi st ake i n hi ndsi ght , but i t i s not an er r or of

const i t ut i onal magni t ude.

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s

or der denyi ng habeas r el i ef .

3 We do not i mpl y t hat t he subj ect i ve i nt ent i ons of Pena' st r i al counsel ar e det er mi nat i ve; t he r easonabl eness t est underSt r i ckl and i s obj ect i ve. See Rodr i guez, 675 F. 3d at 56.

-16-

Documents

Pena v. Dickhaut, 1st Cir. (2013)