Joshua Michael Samson, A/K/A Michael S. Edwards v. Warden, of Mecklenburg
Docket: 92-7141
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; March 31, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Petitioner Joshua Michael Samson sought habeas corpus relief from his 1988 conviction for rape and sodomy, which was dismissed by the District Court. On appeal, he argued that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated due to improper comments by the prosecutor regarding his failure to testify, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment because his attorney did not object to these comments or request a jury instruction on consent.
The case facts revealed that after meeting Linda Naylor, Samson forcibly engaged in sexual acts with her. At trial, the defense did not present evidence, and during closing arguments, the prosecutor referenced the state's "unrebutted" evidence without objection from defense counsel. The defense did argue that Samson was not required to testify and suggested that the evidence indicated consent, but did not offer a specific instruction on consent. Samson was convicted and sentenced to twenty-seven years.
On direct appeal, he initially claimed insufficient evidence but did not pursue a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. Later, he filed a state habeas petition raising various claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel related to the prosecutor's comments and the lack of a consent instruction. The Supreme Court of Virginia denied the petition, concluding that the ineffective assistance claims lacked merit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of Samson's habeas petition.
Samson filed a federal habeas petition, which included several claims that the District Court rejected. On appeal, he focuses on Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims. For the substantive Fifth Amendment violation, Samson did not present his claim regarding the prosecutor's remarks during his direct appeal, leading to its rejection by Virginia courts and barring federal review. Although he contended that the claim was included in his original state habeas petition, his federal petition framed the issue solely within his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court emphasized that habeas claims must be presented in the District Court to be appealed, and Samson's omission in that forum precludes consideration now.
Regarding the Sixth Amendment claims, Samson alleges ineffective assistance due to counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's comments and to request a separate jury instruction on consent. To succeed, he must demonstrate both deficient performance and actual prejudice under the Strickland standard. The District Court noted it must defer to the Virginia Supreme Court's determination of merit but ultimately found that the claims do not survive even a de novo review.
First, defense counsel chose to address the prosecutor's comments in his closing argument rather than objecting, which is viewed as a tactical decision not subject to reevaluation. Second, with respect to the jury instruction on consent, the existing jury instructions already required the state to prove the absence of consent. Thus, Samson failed to show that the outcome would have differed had a separate instruction been provided. As a result, he did not meet the Strickland criteria for ineffective assistance of counsel, and the substantive Fifth Amendment claim is barred. The District Court's judgment is affirmed.
