Winfield v. O'Brien, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Winfield v. O'Brien, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/23

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2438

KEI TH WI NFI ELD,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

STEVEN J . O' BRI EN,

Respondent , Appel l ee.

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

[ Hon. F. Denni s Sayl or I V, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges,and McCaf f er t y, * Di st r i ct J udge.

Rober t L. Sheket of f f or appel l ant .Kr i s C. Fost er , Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Massachuset t s,

wi t h whom Mart ha Coakl ey, At t orney General , Massachuset t s, was onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

December 18, 2014

*Of t he Di st r i ct of New Hampshi r e, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/23

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Thi s appeal i l l ust r at es bot h t he

consi der abl e r esponsi bi l i t y gr ant ed t o a j ur y, and t he r est r i ct ed

scope of f eder al cour t r evi ew of st at e cour t convi ct i ons. A

hei nous cr i me most cer t ai nl y occur r ed. Less cer t ai n i s t he

per pet r at or ' s i dent i t y. No conf essi on, eye- wi t ness test i mony, DNA,

or si mi l ar evi dence poi nt ed t he f i nger conf i dent l y at any one

per son. Rat her , t he di r ect evi dence si mpl y nar r owed t he l i st of

suspect s. A pr oper l y i nst r uct ed Massachuset t s Super i or Cour t j ur y

t hen f ound t hat t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence pr oved beyond a

r easonabl e doubt t hat one of t he suspect s, Kei t h Wi nf i el d,

commi t t ed t he cr i mes. Now servi ng a l i f e sent ence f or assaul t i ng

and r api ng a t wo- year - ol d chi l d, Wi nf i el d f i l ed t hi s pet i t i on f or

a wr i t of habeas cor pus under 28 U. S. C. 2254, seeki ng t o

i nval i dat e hi s convi ct i on on t wo gr ounds.

Fi r st , he cl ai ms t hat t he evi dence agai nst hi m was so

i nsuf f i ci ent t hat no r easonabl e j ur i st coul d have concl uded t hat a

r at i onal j ur y coul d have f ound hi m gui l t y beyond a r easonabl e

doubt . Second, he cl ai ms t hat t he st at e t r i al cour t ' s ref usal t o

per mi t hi mt o cr oss- exami ne t he vi ct i m' s mother about her pot ent i al

bi as ar i si ng f r ompendi ng cr i mi nal char ges agai nst her const i t ut ed

an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of t he cl ear l y est abl i shed Si xt h

Amendment conf r ont at i on r i ght . The di st r i ct cour t , concl udi ng t hat

t he st at e cour t s' r ej ecti on of Wi nf i el d' s cl ai ms di d not const i t ut e

-2-


3/23

an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw, deni ed t he pet i t i on.

We now af f i r m.

I. Background

A. Factual Summary

The char ges on whi ch Wi nf i el d was convi ct ed st emmed f r om

t he vagi nal and anal r ape of hi s t wo- year - ol d ni ece wi t h a cur l i ng

i r on on Oct ober 13, 2005. We r ecount t he evi dence pr esent ed

agai nst Wi nf i el d l ar gel y as i t was descr i bed i n t he opi ni on of t he

Massachuset t s Appeal s Cour t , suppl ement i ng t hat descr i pt i on, wher e

appr opr i at e, wi t h ot her r ecor d f act s consi st ent wi t h t he st at e

cour t ' s f i ndi ngs. See, e. g. , Lynch v. Fi cco, 438 F. 3d 35, 39 ( 1st

Ci r . 2006) .

The vi ct i m, who was t he daught er of Wi nf i el d' s wi f e' s

si st er , was born i n 2003, and l i ved wi t h her mother and mater nal

gr andparent s i n Tewksbur y, Massachuset t s. I n Sept ember 2005, t he

vi ct i m' s mot her , who was seeki ng empl oyment , began l eavi ng her

daught er wi t h Wi nf i el d' s wi f e, Pat r i ci a, on t hose days when she was

out l ooki ng f or a j ob. Wi nf i el d and Pat r i ci a t hemsel ves had t wo

daught er s; at t he t i me, one was f our years ol d, and t he other was

ei ght mont hs ol d. Wi nf i el d, Pat r i ci a, and t hei r t wo daught er s

l i ved on t he f i r st f l oor of a two- f ami l y home i n Mel r ose,

Massachuset t s.

On Oct ober 10, 2005, t he vi ct i m' s mot her began a j ob as

a r adi ol ogy assi st ant i n Bur l i ngt on, Massachuset t s. She ar r anged

-3-


4/23

t o have Pat r i ci a pr ovi de r egul ar daycar e f or t he t wo- year - ol d

vi ct i m begi nni ng on Oct ober 11, 2005, 1 f or appr oxi mat el y $150 per

week. The vi ct i m' s mot her and Pat r i ci a ar r anged t hat t he vi ct i m' s

mot her woul d dr op of f t he vi ct i m at Wi nf i el d' s home on her way t o

work i n t he morni ng, and the vi ct i m' s gr andmother - - t he mother of

bot h t he vi ct i m' s mot her and Pat r i ci a- - woul d pi ck up t he vi ct i m at

3: 00 p. m.

On Tuesday, Oct ober 11, 2005, t he vi ct i m' s mot her

r etur ned home f r omwork, and, upon changi ng her daught er ' s di apers,

f ound br ui ses on her daught er ' s ar ms and l egs. She never t hel ess

r et ur ned t he vi ct i m t o Pat r i ci a and Wi nf i el d' s home t he next day.

That day, af t er wor k, she not i ced addi t i onal brui si ng on her

daught er ' s f ace, arms, and abdomen. The vi ct i m' s mot her cal l ed

Pat r i ci a t o i nqui r e about t he br ui ses, but bot h Pat r i ci a and

Wi nf i el d, who was on l eave f r omhi s j ob and woul d l at er r epor t t hat

he was home on that day, deni ed knowl edge of t hem.

At t he end of t he f ol l owi ng day, Wednesday, Oct ober 12,

2005, t he vi ct i m' s mother not i ced more br ui ses on t he vi ct i m' s arms

and st omach. The onl y evi dence of who was wi t h t he vi ct i mt hat day

( ot her t han her mot her ) was cont ai ned i n Wi nf i el d' s st at ement t o

pol i ce det ect i ves on November 7, 2005. I n t hat st at ement , Wi nf i el d

r epor t ed t hat he di d not assi st hi s wi f e i n t aki ng car e of t he

1 On Oct ober 10, t he vi ct i m' s mat ernal gr andmot her babysather .

-4-


5/23

vi ct i m t hat day. Rat her , he s l ept l at e, t hen l ef t f or

appr oxi matel y f our hour s, r et ur ni ng j ust as t he gr andmot her ar r i ved

t o pi ck up t he vi ct i m.

On t he morni ng of Thur sday, Oct ober 13, 2005, t he

vi ct i m' s mot her changed t he vi ct i m' s di aper bef or e dr i vi ng t o

Pat r i ci a' s t o dr op t he vi cti m of f . The vi cti m' s mot her not i ced

not hi ng of concer n i n t he vi ct i m' s geni t al or anal ar ea. She agai n

dr opped of f t he vi ct i m at t he Wi nf i el d home, and went t o wor k.

Wi nf i el d was asl eep when t he vi ct i m was dr opped of f , but awoke

bet ween 10: 30 t o 11 a. m. Wi nf i el d' s f at her and br ot her , who l i ved

i n t he upst ai r s uni t , wer e not home that day.

The vi ct i m' s mot her t est i f i ed t hat over t he cour se of

t hat day, she cal l ed Wi nf i el d' s home f r om wor k at l east t hr ee- t o-

f our t i mes. The f i r st cal l , whi ch went unanswer ed, was at 12: 40

p. m. She cal l ed a second t i me, at 12: 55 p. m. , and Wi nf i el d

answered. When t he vi ct i m' s mot her asked where Pat r i ci a was,

Wi nf i el d i nf or med her t hat Pat r i ci a had gone t o get cof f ee and

woul d be home soon. When t he vi ct i m' s mot her asked where her

daught er was, Wi nf i el d r epl i ed t hat she was i n f r ont of hi mpl ayi ng

wi t h hi s younger daught er and a t oy. The vi ct i m' s mot her asked t o

speak t o her daught er , and Wi nf i el d st ated t hat he was put t i ng her

on t he t el ephone. The vi ct i m' s mother t hen spoke i nt o t he

t el ephone t o her daught er f or "about t went y mi nut es, " but her

-5-


6/23

daught er was not responsi ve. The mother ' s t est i mony at t r i al

suggest ed t hat t hi s was unusual .

The vi ct i m' s mot her cal l ed a t hi r d t i me, i mmedi at el y

af t er hangi ng up, but t he l i ne was busy. The f i nal cal l t ook pl ace

at 1: 17 p. m. , and Wi nf i el d answered t he t el ephone. When t he

vi ct i m' s mot her asked Wi nf i el d i f her daught er was okay, t he

def endant r epl i ed t hat she was f i ne and "was j ust si t t i ng and

pl ayi ng. "

When t he gr andmot her ar r i ved at Wi nf i el d' s home t o pi ck

up t he vi ct i m t hat af t er noon, Wi nf i el d and Pat r i ci a wer e bot h at

home, and t he vi ct i mwas sl eepi ng. Af t er a f ew mi nut es, t he vi ct i m

awoke and r an t o her gr andmot her , cr yi ng. As t hey went t o t he car ,

t he gr andmot her t r i ed t o get t he vi ct i m t o wal k, but she r ef used,

and cont i nued t o cr y. As an expl anat i on, Wi nf i el d of f er ed onl y

"maybe her l egs ar e st i l l asl eep. " The vi ct i mcont i nued t o cry al l

t he way t o Tewksbury. Once i nsi de t he Tewksbury house, t he

gr andmother changed t he vi ct i m' s di aper , and not i ced t hat her

vagi nal area was r ed and puf f y. 2

That eveni ng, t he vi ct i m' s mot her changed t he vi ct i m' s

di aper at 8: 00 p. m. , and t he vi ct i m cr i ed and appear ed t o be i n

pai n. The vi ct i m' s vagi nal and anal ar eas wer e ver y r ed. The

2 Cr edi t i ng t he gr andmot her ' s t est i mony l i mi t s t he wi ndowdur i ng whi ch t he cr i me coul d have been per pet r at ed t o the t i mebet ween t he vi ct i m bei ng dr opped of f at t he Wi nf i el d home and t het i me t he gr andmot her pi cked her up. Wi nf i el d does not argue t hatt he gr andmother ' s t est i mony shoul d not be credi t ed.

-6-


7/23

vi ct i m cont i nued t o cry, but event ual l y f el l asl eep, ar ound 9: 00

p. m. Ar ound 11: 00 p. m. , t he vi ct i m woke up and sai d she needed a

di aper change. The mother agai n changed t he vi ct i m' s di aper , t hi s

t i me not i ci ng t hat t he vi ct i m' s geni t al and anal ar eas wer e

bl eedi ng, and t hat t he ski n i n t hose ar eas was bl i st er i ng. The

vi ct i m cr i ed dur i ng t he change, but soon f el l back asl eep.

The next mor ni ng, t he mot her t ook t he vi ct i mt o a medi cal

of f i ce i n Somer vi l l e, Massachuset t s, wher e Dr . Car ol e Al l en, t he

di r ect or of pedi at r i cs, exami ned t he vi ct i m. The vi ct i m' s vagi nal

area was bl i st er ed, her anal area was r ed, and she appeared to be

i n pai n. Af t er consul t i ng wi t h t he vi ct i m' s pr i mar y car e

physi ci an, Dr . Al l en f or med t he opi ni on t hat t he vi ct i m had been

r aped.

At Dr . Al l en' s suggest i on, t he mot her t ook the vi ct i mt o

Chi l dr en' s Hospi t al , wher e t he vi ct i m was seen at appr oxi mat el y

10: 30 p. m. by a t eam of physi ci ans t hat i ncl uded Dr . Al i ce Newt on,

t he medi cal di r ect or of t he chi l d pr ot ect i on t eam at Chi l dr en' s

Hospi t al . The t eam exami ned and phot ogr aphed t he vi ct i m, and

det er mi ned t hat t her e wer e second- and t hi r d- degr ee bur ns on t he

vi ct i m' s geni t al s and anus. The vi ct i m' s l abi a maj or a and t he

st r uct ur e i nsi de i t wer e r ed and bl i st er ed. Al so r ed, bl i st er ed,

and peel i ng was a f our - t o f i ve- cent i met er ar ea ar ound t he vi ct i m' s

anus. I nt er nal exami nat i on r eveal ed t hat t he bur ns ext ended al most

an i nch i nsi de t he vi ct i m' s anus, and t hat t her e wer e t hr ee t ear s

-7-


8/23

f r om st r et chi ng of t he anal t i ssue. The doct or s concl uded t hat

t hese i nj ur i es i ndi cat ed i mpal ement by a hot , cyl i ndr i cal

i nst r ument . I n addi t i on, t hey obser ved br ui ses on t he vi ct i m' s

l ef t j aw, her f or ehead, her cheek, her chest , and her r i ght ni ppl e.

Dr . Newt on opi ned at t r i al t hat t he vagi nal and anal bur ns wer e

i nt ent i onal l y i nf l i cted, wi t h a cyl i ndr i cal i nst r ument such as a

cur l i ng i r on, bet ween t went y- f our and t hi r t y- si x hour s bef or e she

exami ned t he vi ct i mat appr oxi mat el y mi dni ght on Oct ober 14- - i . e. ,

between noon and mi dni ght on Thur sday, Oct ober 13, t he l ast day the

chi l d was at Wi nf i el d' s home.

A CAT scan of t he vi ct i m, t aken on Oct ober 15, 2005, at

1: 00 p. m. , r eveal ed t hat t he vi ct i mal so had a l ar ge skul l f r act ur e

on t he r ear l ef t si de of her head, wi t h i nt er nal bl eedi ng near her

br ai n. Newt on opi ned t hat t he cause of such an i nj ur y must have

been a t r aumat i c event , but t hat she coul d not say whet her t he

i nj ur y was acci dent al or pur posef ul l y i nf l i ct ed. She opi ned t hat

t he i nj ur y was sust ai ned wi t hi n t hr ee days of t he CAT scan.

A skel et al survey al so conduct ed on t he 15t h r eveal ed a

heal i ng f r actur e of t he r adi us i n t he vi cti m' s l ef t wr i st . Dr .

Newt on opi ned that t he i nj ur y coul d have been acci dent al or

i nf l i ct ed, but woul d have gener ated pai n. Newt on observed, based

on t he heal i ng of t he i nj ur y, t hat t he wr i st f r act ur e was at l east

seven days, and not more t han a mont h, ol d. The sur vey al so

-8-


9/23

r eveal ed heal i ng f r act ur es i n t he f our t h and f i f t h r i bs. Newt on

opi ned t hat t hese i nj ur i es rai sed t he concer n of i nf l i ct ed i nj ur y.

On t he eveni ng of Oct ober 14, 2005, an emer gency response

worker f r om t he Depart ment of Chi l dr en and Fami l i es and a Mel r ose

pol i ce det ect i ve went t o Wi nf i el d' s home t o check on hi s chi l dr en.

Wi nf i el d was at work, but he met t he f ol l owi ng day at hi s home wi t h

t he emergency r esponse worker and Mel r ose pol i ce det ect i ve Mark

Ant onangel i . Accompani ed by Pat r i ci a, Wi nf i el d st at ed t hat he was

home Oct ober 11t h t hr ough 13t h, 2005, whi l e hi s wi f e was

babysi t t i ng t he vi ct i m, and t hat he and hi s wi f e wer e the onl y

car et aker s of t he vi ct i m dur i ng t he t i me she was at t hei r house on

t hose days. He f ur t her st at ed t hat he changed t he vi ct i m' s di aper

once, on Thur sday, Oct ober 13, and that as he changed t he di aper ,

he not i ced t hat t he vi ct i m' s vagi nal ar ea was swol l en, and he

cal l ed hi s wi f e t o l ook at i t . He sai d t hat t hey had concl uded

t hat t he vi ct i mhad abad di aper r ash. He al so st ated t hat at some

poi nt t hat day he hear d t he vi ct i m cr yi ng; he t hen di scover ed her

on t he f l oor and assumed t hat she f el l of f t he bed. When Pat r i ci a

sai d she had gone out wi t h t hei r f our - year - ol d daught er f or f or t y-

f i ve mi nut es t o one hour , t he pet i t i oner agr eed.

On November 7, 2005, Wi nf i el d, accompani ed by counsel ,

wai ved hi s Mi r anda r i ght s and was i nt er vi ewed by pol i ce at t he

-9-


10/23

st at i on. 3 A r edact ed ver si on of hi s st at ement was pl ayed f or t he

j ury. Dur i ng hi s st at ement , he sai d t hat on Oct ober 13, 2005, he

was at home, t her e were no vi si t ors at t he home, hi s f ather and

br ot her wer e at wor k, and he was al one wi t h t he vi ct i m and hi s

ei ght - mont h- ol d daught er f or bet ween f or t y- f i ve mi nut es and one

hour dur i ng t he mi ddl e of t he day. He f ur t her st ated t hat when t he

vi ct i m' s mot her cal l ed mi dday on Oct ober 13, and he gave t he phone

t o t he vi ct i m, she responded on t he phone ver bal l y, sayi ng "Momma,

Momma, " and ot her words he coul d not r ecal l . He added t hat he di d

not get al ong wel l wi t h t he vi ct i m' s mother , and t hat he had not

been i n f avor of t aki ng on anot her chi l d.

B. Procedural History

I n August 2006, a Mi ddl esex Count y gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed

Wi nf i el d on t wo count s of Rape of Chi l d, see MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 265,

22A, I ndecent Assaul t and Bat t er y on Chi l d Under t he Age of

Four t een, see i d. 13B, and Assaul t and Bat t er y by Means of a

Danger ous Weapon Causi ng Ser i ous Bodi l y I nj ur y, see i d.

15A( c) ( I ) . At t r i al , he t i mel y moved f or a r equi r ed f i ndi ng of

not gui l t y. The j udge deni ed hi s mot i on. On t he second day of

del i ber at i ons, t he j ur y r et ur ned gui l t y ver di ct s on al l char ges.

Wi nf i el d r ecei ved concur r ent l i f e sent ences on both r ape char ges,

3 Wi nf i el d' s wi f e, Pat r i ci a, had spoken wi t h pol i ce at t hest at i on on Oct ober 29. She was accompani ed by t he same at t orneywho woul d accompany Wi nf i el d on November 7.

-10-


11/23

and concur r ent ni ne- t o- t en year sent ences on the remai ni ng two

convi ct i ons.

Wi nf i el d t i mel y appeal ed t o the Massachuset t s Appeal s

Cour t , ar gui ng, i nt er al i a, t hat t he t r i al cour t er r ed by denyi ng

hi s mot i on f or a r equi r ed f i ndi ng of not gui l t y at t he cl ose of t he

Commonweal t h' s case, and by ref usi ng t o al l ow hi m t o i mpeach t he

vi ct i m' s mot her f or bi as s t emmi ng f r om her pendi ng cr i mi nal

char ges. Af t er br i ef i ng and or al ar gument , t he Appeal s Cour t

af f i r med hi s convi ct i ons. See Commonweal t h v. Wi nf i el d, 76 Mass.

App. Ct . 716 ( 2010) . I n r ej ect i ng hi s suf f i ci ency cl ai m, i t

r easoned as f ol l ows:

The mai n evi dence present ed agai nst t he def endantwas t he medi cal evi dence and t he def endant ' s r ecor dedpol i ce i nt er vi ew. From t he medi cal evi dence, t he j ur ycoul d have concl uded t hat t he bur ns and skul l f r act ur e oft he vi cti m wer e i nf l i cted shor t l y af t er mi dday onOct ober 13, 2005, and t hat t he vi ct i m woul d have cr i edal oud as she suf f er ed t he i nj ur i es. The j ur y coul d al soi nf er t hat , because the vi ct i m woul d have cr i ed al oud,t he i nj ur i es wer e i nf l i ct ed at a t i me when no one wasar ound t o hear t he vi ct i m' s cr i es. Mor eover , f r om t hedef endant ' s pr i or r ecor ded st at ement s t o t he pol i ce, t hej ury wer e awar e t hat , on t he day t he i nj ur i es wer ei nf l i ct ed, t he def endant was at home dur i ng mi dday wi t honl y t he vi ct i m and hi s ei ght mont h ol d daught er .Theref or e, t he def endant was t he onl y adul t who hadaccess t o t he vi ct i m dur i ng t he t i me span i n whi ch t hei nj ur i es occur r ed.

I n addi t i on t o havi ng access t o t he vi ct i m, t he

def endant had t he means t o commi t t he cr i mes. I n t hebat hr oom of t he def endant ' s home was a smal l cur l i ngi r on. Af t er vi ewi ng phot ogr aphs of t he vi ct i m' si nj ur i es, t he j ur y coul d f i nd t hat t he pat t er n of t hebur ns t o t he vi ct i m' s anus wer e consi st ent wi t h havi ngbeen i nf l i ct ed by a hot i nst r ument t he same shape andsi ze of a smal l cur l i ng i r on.

-11-


12/23

Fi nal l y, t he j ur y coul d consi der t he f act t hat t hedef endant , and not hi s wi f e, had expr essed di spl easur eover t he pr esence of t he vi ct i m i n hi s home. I n hi sr ecor ded i nt er vi ew, t he def endant st at ed that he neverwant ed hi s wi f e t o car e f or t he vi ct i m. Whi l e suchevi dence i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh mot i ve, t he j ur y

coul d i nf er t he def endant ' s host i l i t y t owar d t he vi ct i m,whi ch i s rel evant t o mot i ve. Ther e was no evi dence t hatsuch host i l i t y was shar ed by hi s wi f e.

. . .

I n sum, t he j udge cor r ect l y r ul ed t hat t he evi dence,vi ewed i n t he l i ght most f avorabl e t o t he Commonweal t h,per mi t t ed a r at i onal t r i er of f act t o f i nd t he def endantgui l t y of t he i ndi ct ment s.

I d. at 722- 23 ( f oot not es omi t t ed) .

Wi nf i el d sought f ur t her appel l at e r evi ew f r om t he

Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t . Af t er hi s appl i cat i on was

deni ed, see Commonweal t h v. Wi nf i el d, 457 Mass. 1108 ( 2010) , he

t i mel y f i l ed t hi s pet i t i on f or a wr i t of habeas cor pus i n t he

Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed hi s pet i t i on, but i ssued a Cer t i f i cat e of

Appeal abi l i t y as t o bot h i ssues. Wi nf i el d appeal ed. We have

j ur i sdi ct i on pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 2253( a) .

II. Analysis

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

I n seeki ng t o set asi de a ver di ct under t he f eder al

Const i t ut i on f or l ack of suf f i ci ent pr oof , Wi nf i el d needed t o

convi nce t he Massachuset t s cour t s t hat , "af t er vi ewi ng t he evi dence

i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on, [ no] r at i onal t r i er

of f act coul d have f ound t he essent i al el ement s of t he cr i me beyond

-12-


13/23

a r easonabl e doubt . " J ackson v. Vi r gi ni a, 443 U. S. 307, 319

( 1979) ; Magr aw v. Roden, 743 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Thi s

st andar d "exhi bi t s gr eat r espect f or t he j ur y' s ver di ct , " Magr aw,

743 F. 3d at 4, but never t hel ess does not i nsul at e such a ver di ct

f r om r ever sal i f based on "evi dent i ar y i nt er pr et at i ons and

i l l at i ons t hat ar e unr easonabl e, i nsuppor t abl e, or over l y

specul at i ve. " I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Spi nney, 65 F. 3d 231,

234 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ) .

Wi t h t he Massachuset t s cour t s havi ng r ej ect ed Wi nf i el d' s

di r ect appeal by concl udi ng t hat t he j ur y ver di ct was based on

suf f i ci ent evi dence, t hi s col l at er al at t ack seeki ng a wr i t of

habeas corpus f r oma f eder al cour t pr ovi des Wi nf i el d wi t h a second,

mor e l i mi t ed oppor t uni t y t o set asi de t he j ur y' s ver di ct . As

const r ai ned by t he Ant i t er r or i sm and Ef f ect i ve Deat h Penal t y Act

( "AEDPA") 4, our col l at er al f eder al r evi ew i s l i mi t ed t o det er mi ni ng

whet her t he st at e cour t s' deci si on f i ndi ng t he evi dence

const i t ut i onal l y suf f i ci ent "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 f eder al l aw, as

det er mi ned by t he Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St ates[ . ] " 28 U. S. C.

2254( d) ( 1) . I n other words, we do not ask, as we mi ght on di r ect

r evi ew of a convi ct i on i n f eder al cour t , whet her t he evi dence was

const i t ut i onal l y suf f i ci ent . We ask, i nst ead, whet her t he st at e

4 See Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 104, 110 St at . 1214, 1218- 1219,codi f i ed at 28 U. S. C. 2254.

-13-


14/23

cour t s' r ul i ng t hat t he evi dence i s const i t ut i onal l y suf f i ci ent was

i t sel f "unr easonabl e. " I d. 5 "Unr easonabl e" i n t hi s cont ext means

t hat t he deci si on "evi nces some i ncr ement of i ncor r ect ness beyond

mer e er r or . " Lef t wi ch v. Mal oney, 532 F. 3d 20, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ;

see gener al l y Hur t ado v. Tucker , 245 F. 3d 7, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2001)

( "Habeas r evi ew i nvol ves t he l ayer i ng of t wo st andards. 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 andard gover ni ng

t he const i t ut i onal r i ght asser t ed. ") . The r esul t i ng t est r ai ses a

hi gh bar , but i t i s never t hel ess a bar t hat can be met . See

O' Laughl i n v. O' Br i en, 568 F. 3d 287, 304 ( 1st Ci r . 2009)

( acknowl edgi ng t he "ext r emel y hi gh bar t hat must be over come on

habeas r evi ew t o over t ur n a st at e cour t deci si on, " but f i ndi ng t he

bar met ) .

Demonst r at i ng a ref i ned under st andi ng of t he l i mi t ed

scope of our r evi ew- - a scope r ef l ect i ve not onl y of st at ut or y

r equi r ement s, but of our r espect f or t he j ur y' s r ol e and our

def er ence t o t he st at e cour t s' consi der at i on of Wi nf i el d' s

chal l enge- - Wi nf i el d j oi ns i ssue onl y on t he nar r ow quest i on of

whet her t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al was suf f i ci ent t o per mi t a

r easonabl e j ur i st t o concl ude t hat a rat i onal j ur y coul d have f ound

beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat i t was Wi nf i el d, r at her t han hi s

5 We answer t hi s quest i on de novo, wi t hout def er ence t o t hedeci si on of t he di st r i ct cour t . Pena v. Di ckhaut , 736 F. 3d 600, 603( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

-14-


15/23

wi f e Pat r i ci a, who commi t t ed t he cr i me. And even wi t hout

Wi nf i el d' s wel l - advi sed i mpl i ci t concessi on, t he assumpt i on we must

make t hat t he j ur y bel i eved t he t est i mony of t he mot her and

gr andmot her , t ogether wi t h the expert evi dence, does i ndeed mean

t hat we need pr esume t hat ei t her Wi nf i el d, hi s wi f e or both must

have commi t t ed t he char ged cr i me. We t heref ore t r ai n our r evi ew on

Wi nf i el d' s key ar gument t hat " [ w] hat ever r eason t he pr osecut i on had

f or bl ami ng [ t he def endant ] r at her t han hi s wi f e, assumi ng t her e

was one, never made i t i nt o evi dence bef or e t he j ur y. "

Not i onal l y, Wi nf i el d i s cor r ect t hat evi dence suf f i ci ent

onl y t o est abl i sh wi t h near l y equal l i kel i hood t hat A or B

commi t t ed a cr i me cannot suppor t a ver di ct agai nst ei t her . " [ I ] f

t he evi dence vi ewed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct

gi ves equal or near l y equal ci r cumst ant i al suppor t t o a t heor y of

gui l t and a t heor y of i nnocence of t he cr i me char ged, t hi s cour t

must r ever se t he convi ct i on. " O' Laughl i n, 568 F. 3d at 301 ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Fl or es- Ri ver a, 56 F. 3d 319, 323 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ) .

The r at i onal e f or t hi s r ul e i s si mpl e: A cr i mi nal t r i al ought not

be an arbi t r ary exer ci se, and "wher e an equal or near l y equal

t heory of gui l t and a t heor y of i nnocence i s support ed by t he

evi dence vi ewed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on, a

r easonabl e j ur y must necessar i l y ent er t ai n a r easonabl e doubt . "

I d. ( emphasi s omi t t ed) .

-15-


16/23

Ther e i s some quest i on whether t hi s r ul e we have

r ecogni zed appl i es as a l aw "determi ned by t he Supr eme Cour t of t he

Uni t ed St at es. " 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) ( 1) . I n ot her wor ds, i s i t a

si mpl e r ewor di ng of t he J ackson st andar d, or i s i t a ci r cui t l evel

added ref i nement ? See Gl ebe v. Fr ost , 135 S. Ct . 429, 430 ( 2014) ;

Whi t e v. Woodal l , 134 S. Ct . 1697, 1702 ( 2014) . J ackson af t er al l

i ncl uded t he st at ement t hat "a f eder al habeas corpus cour t f aced

wi t h a r ecor d of hi st or i cal f acts t hat suppor t s conf l i ct i ng

i nf er ences must pr esume- - even i f i t does not af f i r mat i vel y appear

i n t he r ecor d- - t hat t he t r i er of f act r esol ved any such conf l i ct s

i n f avor of t he pr osecut i on, and must def er t o t hat r esol ut i on. "

J ackson, 443 U. S. at 326. Ul t i mat el y, we need not deci de whether

evi dent i ar y equi poi se pr ecl udes col l at er al r ever sal of a gui l t y

ver di ct because, vi ewed r easonabl y as a rat i onal j ur y may have

vi ewed i t , t he evi dence di d not poi nt wi t h near l y equal f or ce at

bot h Wi nf i el d and hi s wi f e. Most not abl y, onl y Wi nf i el d was l ef t

al one i n t he apar t ment wi t h t he t wo- year - ol d vi ct i m and t he i nf ant

on Oct ober 13, 2005. He t her ef ore had a mater i al l y gr eater

oppor t uni t y t o commi t t he of f ense wi t hout det ect i on.

Wi nf i el d does of f er a t wo- par t r ej oi nder t o t he

observat i on t hat he had a mater i al l y gr eater opport uni t y t o commi t

t he cr i me. He poi nt s f i r st t o hi s st at ement t hat he was asl eep

unt i l 10: 30 or 11: 00 t hat mor ni ng. He poi nt s second t o t he

possi bi l i t y t hat t he per pet r at or muf f l ed t he vi ct i m' s cr i es whi l e

-16-


17/23

assaul t i ng t he chi l d, t hus per haps expl ai ni ng some of t he br ui ses.

The Massachuset t s cour t s wer e unconvi nced t hat t he count er vai l i ng

f or ce of t hi s rej oi nder was suf f i ci ent t o r estor e equi l i br i um i n

t he di r ect i onal t hr ust of t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence. Reason i s

not t o t he cont r ar y. The home was a si ngl e f l oor uni t wi t h t wo

bedr ooms, a l i vi ng r oom, a ki t chen, and a si ngl e bat hr oom. Any

oppor t uni t y to commi t t he cr i me wi t hout not i ce by Wi nf i el d, even i f

t hought t o be st i l l sl eepi ng, or by t he f our - year - ol d, coul d

r easonabl y be vi ewed as markedl y l ess t han t he opport uni t y t o

commi t t he cr i me undet ect ed af t er bot h t he ot her adul t and t he

f our - year - ol d l ef t t he apar t ment . And t he f act t hat t he doct or ' s

est i mat ed r ange of t he t i me of i nj ur y commenced at noon, af t er he

awoke, t i l t ed t he evi dence i n t he same di r ect i on. 6 I n a di f f er ent

but al so pr obat i ve manner , t he conf l i ct i ng test i mony by t he mot her

and Wi nf i el d r egardi ng whet her t he chi l d was r esponsi ve on t he

phone creat ed f ur t her cause t o cal l i nt o quest i on Wi nf i el d' s

ver si on of event s t hat day.

Ther e i s al so t he evi dence t hat , af t er t he st at e

i nt er vened, Wi nf i el d r epor t ed t hat he had not i ced a "bad di aper

r ash" on t he day i n quest i on, and t hat t he vi ct i m f el l out of bed.

Yet t here i s no evi dence t hat he r epor t ed such f act s on t he day i n

6 The mot her ' s phone cal l di d, we note, i nt er r upt by 20mi nut es Wi nf i el d' s 45- 60 mi nut e wi ndow al one wi t h t he vi ct i m. I tst i l l l ef t a wi ndow of oppor t uni t y t hat was gr eat er f or hi m t hanf or hi s wi f e.

-17-


18/23

quest i on, even when t he vi ct i m was cryi ng and l i mp when t he

grandmot her pi cked her up.

We do obser ve t hat , i f Wi nf i el d' s st at ement t o pol i ce- -

t hat he was out f or f our hour s and di d not wat ch t he vi ct i m on

Wednesday, Oct ober 12- - wer e bel i eved, i t woul d f ol l ow t hat he had

no t i me al one wi t h t he vi ct i mon Wednesday, whi l e hi s wi f e di d, and

new br ui ses wer e det ect ed at t he end of t hat day. I t i s not

unr easonabl e t o t hi nk, t hough, t hat a r at i onal j ur y coul d have

di scount ed Wi nf i el d' s ver si on of event s. And even i f not , a j ur y

was not compel l ed t o f i nd t hat t he sour ce of t he br ui ses ( a f al l

per haps?) was i dent i cal t o the sour ce of t he vagi nal and anal

i nj ur i es. Mor e gener al l y, t he l ogi cal choi ces her e wer e not

l i mi t ed t o ei t her Wi nf i el d al one, or hi s wi f e al one. A t hi r d

choi ce was bot h. So t he cont ent i on t hat l ogi c poi nt ed uner r i ngl y

t o Wi nf i el d' s gui l t or i nnocence i n equi poi se i s not cor r ect .

Wi nf i el d not es t hat hi s wi f e never t est i f i ed, and

t her ef or e never deni ed t he cr i me, whi l e t he j ur y hear d Wi nf i el d' s

r ecor ded st at ement i n whi ch he deni ed t he cr i me. The absence of

t he wi f e' s appear ance as a wi t ness i s puzzl i ng. Appar ent l y bot h

si des concl uded t hat t her e was mor e t o l ose i n cal l i ng her . I n any

event , gi ven t he f or egoi ng evi dence poi nt i ng mor e t owar ds Wi nf i el d,

we cannot say t hat t he absence of t est i mony by t he wi f e rendered

t he evi dence so cl ear l y i nsuf f i ci ent t hat a f i ndi ng of gui l t woul d

r epr esent an " i ncr ement of i ncor r ect ness beyond mer e err or . "

-18-


19/23

Lef t wi ch, 532 F. 3d at 23. "The pr osecut i on may pr ove i t s case by

ci r cumst ant i al evi dence, and i t need not excl ude ever y reasonabl e

hypot hesi s of i nnocence so l ong as t he t ot al evi dence per mi t s a

concl usi on of gui l t beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " Uni t ed St at es v.

Br own, 603 F. 2d 1022, 1025 ( 1st Ci r . 1979) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ; see

al so St ewar t v. Coal t er , 48 F. 3d 610, 615- 16 ( 1st Ci r . 1995)

( "Gui l t beyond a r easonabl e doubt cannot be pr emi sed on pur e

conj ect ur e. But a conj ect ur e consi st ent wi t h t he evi dence becomes

l ess and l ess a conj ect ur e, and moves gradual l y t owar d pr oof , as

al t er nat i ve i nnocent expl anat i ons are di scarded or made l ess

l i kel y. " ) .

We need not consi der whether t he addi t i onal evi dence on

whi ch t he st at e cour t s r el i ed- - f or exampl e, Wi nf i el d' s access t o a

cur l i ng i r on ( whi ch woul d seem t o have been equal l y avai l abl e t o

hi s wi f e) , or hi s r at her i nnocuous st at ement t hat he di d not want

t o have t he vi ct i m at hi s home- - wer e suf f i ci ent l y i l l umi nat i ng t o

l end f ur t her l egi t i macy t o t he ver di ct . " [ D] et er mi ni ng whet her a

st at e cour t ' s deci si on r esul t ed f r om an unr easonabl e l egal or

f act ual concl usi on does not r equi r e . . . an opi ni on f r omt he st at e

cour t expl ai ni ng [ i t s] r easoni ng. " Har r i ngt on v. Ri cht er , 131 S.

Ct . 770, 784 ( 2011) . Nor need we i gnor e t he di f f i cul t y of assumi ng

t hat r at i onal r easoni ng pl ayed any r ol e i n t he deci si on t o commi t

t he cr i me ( or i n much of t he behavi or l eadi ng up t o Oct ober 13) .

Cer t ai nl y a r at i onal j ur y coul d have acqui t t ed Wi nf i el d. The

-19-


20/23

quest i on at t hi s st age of r evi ew, t hough, i s whet her t he st at e

cour t s coul d r easonabl y concl ude t hat , wher e Wi nf i el d' s oppor t uni t y

t o commi t t he of f ense was mat er i al l y, al bei t mar gi nal l y, gr eat er

t han t hat of t he onl y ot her possi bl e per pet r at or 7, and wher e t he

exper t evi dence and t he phone cal l cast hei ght ened r el evant f ocus

on t he t i me when he was al one wi t h t he chi l d, a rat i onal j ur y coul d

concl ude beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat he was t he perpet r at or .

For t he f oregoi ng r easons, we must answer "yes. "

B. Scope of Cross-Examination

Pr i or t o t r i al , t he st at e l odged a cri mi nal compl ai nt

agai nst t he vi ct i m' s mot her , char gi ng her wi t h 25 count s of

ut t er i ng a f al se pr escri pt i on f or a cont r ol l ed subst ance. Wi nf i el d

sought t o cr oss- exami ne t he vi ct i m' s mother on t hat cr i mi nal

compl ai nt , so t hat he coul d r ai se an i nf er ence t hat her t est i mony

was i nf l uenced by the government , whi ch pl ai nl y had l everage over

her . And because her t est i mony was i mport ant i n est abl i shi ng t he

wi ndow wi t hi n whi ch t he cr i me occur r ed, pr oof of any such bi as

i nf ect i ng t hat t est i mony woul d have been qui t e hel pf ul t o t he

def ense. The t r i al cour t pr ecl uded Wi nf i el d f r om t hi s l i ne of

exami nat i on, and t he appeal s cour t af f i r med t hat r ul i ng.

Our r evi ew of Wi nf i el d' s col l at er al chal l enge t o t hat

r ul i ng i s anal ogous t o t hat r evi ew empl oyed i n our suf f i ci ency

7 Assumi ng, as we must , t hat t he j ur y bel i eved t he t est i monyof t he vi ct i m' s mother and gr andmother .

-20-


21/23

anal ysi s. We empl oy t he st andar d gover ni ng t he const i t ut i onal

r i ght asser t ed ( her e t he Si xt h Amendment r i ght of conf r ont at i on) ,

but we do so onl y f or t he pur pose of det er mi ni ng whet her t he st ate

cour t deci si on r ej ect i ng Wi nf i el d' s asser t i on of t hat r i ght was

cont r ar y to, or an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of , t he l aw as cl ear l y

est abl i shed by Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent .

An "essent i al const i t ut i onal r i ght f or a f ai r t r i al , " t he

r i ght of cross exami nat i on i s never t hel ess " subj ect t o ' r easonabl e

l i mi t s' r ef l ect i ng concer ns such as pr ej udi ce, conf usi on or del ay

i nci dent t o ' mar gi nal l y r el evant ' evi dence. " Whi t e, 399 F. 3d at 24

( quot i ng Del awar e v. Van Ar sdel l , 475 U. S. 673, 678- 79 ( 1986) ) . A

chal l enge t o an excl usi on of evi dence on cross exami nat i on based on

t hose l i mi t s "i s t enabl e onl y wher e t he r est r i ct i on i s mani f est l y

unr easonabl e or over br oad. " El l swort h v. Warden, 333 F. 3d 1, 7

( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( en banc) .

The probl em f or Wi nf i el d here i s t hat t he cr i mi nal

charges agai nst t he vi ct i m' s mother were l odged wel l over a year

af t er t he she gave her st atement s t o pol i ce and chi l d wel f ar e

of f i ci al s, and l ong af t er her subsequent gr and j ur y t est i mony. Her

t r i al t est i mony, i n t ur n, was ent i r el y consi st ent i n mat er i al

r espect s wi t h t hose pr i or st at ement s and t est i mony. Ther ef or e, t he

pr emi se t hat t he t est i mony was cr af t ed i n par t as a r esul t of t he

i nt er veni ng cr i mi nal char ges was not pl ausi bl e. At most , one mi ght

-21-


22/23

specul ate t hat t he char ges r educed t he l i kel i hood t hat she woul d

r ecant her ear l i er pr onouncement s.

Wi nf i el d poi nt s t o no case hol di ng t hat t he excl usi on of

evi dence havi ng such a l ogi cal l y at t enuat ed abi l i t y t o i mpl y bi as

i s unr easonabl e. He poi nt s i nst ead t o Davi s v. Al aska, 415 U. S. 308

( 1974) . I n Davi s, t hough, t he pr of f er ed evi dence was t hat a

cr uci al eye wi t ness was on pr obat i on f or bur gl ar y bot h at t he t i me

of hi s i ni t i al st at ement and at t he t i me of t r i al . I n shor t , t he

f act pr of f er ed as a sour ce of bi as- - t he pr obat i on- - was oper at i ve at

al l t i mes when t he i ncul pator y evi dence hel pi ng t he st at e was

t ender ed. I d. at 310- 11.

We obser ve, t oo, t hat pr ecl udi ng Wi nf i el d f r om cross-

exami ni ng on these pendi ng cr i mi nal char ges, even i f mar gi nal l y

probat i ve of bi as, was l i ke denyi ng someone a cap gun when he has

a bazooka handy. When a chi l d i s di scover ed t o have numerous

unexpl ai ned i nj ur i es t hat apparent l y went unaddr essed f or some

t i me, t he mot her has ampl e mot i ve t o def l ect t he bl ame t owards

someone el se. And t her e i s no cl ai m t hat t he t r i al cour t

r est r i ct ed Wi nf i el d f r om cross- exami ni ng on t est i moni al bi as

ar i si ng f r om t hat mot i ve.

For t hese reasons, we cannot say t hat t he st at e cour t ' s

excl usi on of evi dence about t he vi ct i m' s mot her ' s pendi ng cr i mi nal

char ges was an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of l aw cl ear l y est abl i shed

by Supr eme Cour t precedent .

-22-


23/23

III. Conclusion

We have r evi ewed t he r ecord i n t hi s t r oubl i ng case. Our

aut hor i t y i n so doi ng i s l i mi t ed. We cannot ask whet her we woul d

have voted f or convi ct i on. Nor can we even ask whet her we woul d

have sust ai ned t he convi ct i on on di r ect r evi ew. I nst ead, Congr ess

has l i mi t ed our col l at er al r evi ew t o aski ng whet her Massachuset t s

cour t s coul d have reasonabl y concl uded t hat a rat i onal j ur y coul d

have f ound Wi nf i el d gui l t y beyond a r easonabl e doubt . Fi ndi ng t hat

t hey coul d have, we must af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s or der denyi ng

Wi nf i el d' s pet i t i on. So or der ed.

-23-

Winfield v. O'Brien, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents

Transcript of Winfield v. O'Brien, 1st Cir. (2014)