Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his life sentence without possibility of parole that was imposed in his felony murder conviction, even though defendant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to rebut evidence during sentencing phase of case that defendant had committed uncharged murder and arson. Defendant was unable to establish any prejudice arising out of his counsel performance where: (1) counsel introduced extensive mitigation evidence regarding defendant’s troubled childhood and his struggle with alcoholism; (2) defendant’s suggested mitigation evidence was cumulative to what counsel had already introduced; and (3) defendant would not have received lighter sentence even if counsel had presented rebuttal evidence given gruesome details of instant murder that occurred in course of defendant’s commission of home invasion and aggravated sexual assault.

Ct. of Appeals denied motion by defendant’s substitute appellate counsel to recall opinion that decided defendant’s appeal on its merits under circumstances where prior appellate counsel withdrew as counsel on grounds of laboring under potential conflict of interest arising out of counsel being subject to criminal investigation. While defendant argued that recall of opinion was appropriate because prior counsel was laboring under conflict of interest and was ineffective in failing to raise two issues, Dist. Ct. had previously found that prior counsel was not laboring under conflict where he had filed defendant’s appellate court brief prior to being named as subject of criminal investigation. As such, defendant’s only remedy was to file habeas petition if he believed that prior counsel was ineffective. Ct., though, gave current counsel for defendant 30 days to determine whether there were any other issues that could be raised in petition for rehearing.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging her reckless homicide conviction on ground that state court improperly limited testimony of defendant’s psychologist about defendant’s history of abuse or about her mental state on day victim died. Issue regarding limitation of expert’s testimony was question of state law that could not be addressed in instant federal habeas petition. Moreover, instant state-court limitations on expert testimony about defendant’s mental state were constitutional, and plaintiff failed to cite to any case law to support her proposition that trial court was required to admit expert evidence regarding her mental state or her history of abuse as child.

In prosecution on charge of conspiracy to rob drug stash-house, Dist. Ct. erred in granting govt.’s motion in limine to prevent defendant from presenting entrapment defense. Dist. Ct. improperly made credibility finding when granting instant request, and defendant otherwise presented enough evidence to justify giving entrapment instruction to jury, where defendant testified that govt. informant: (1) appealed to his friendship when requesting that he assist him in instant staged robbery; (2) gave money to defendant in order to create debt that he knew defendant could not repay; (3) exploited said debt by alluding to his status as gang member; and (4) repeatedly pestered defendant over substantial period of time. Also, although defendant had extensive prior criminal history, he presented sufficient evidence with respect to his lack of predisposition to commit instant robbery given his repeated rejections of informant’s request. Fact that defendant subsequently participated in planning of robbery and in recruiting of other members of alleged conspiracy did not require different result. (Dissent filed.)