Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; September 4, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Luis Marshall, superintendent of Wallkill Correctional Facility, appeals a district court judgment granting Stephen G. Schulz’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court identified two main deficiencies in Schulz’s trial counsel: the failure to interview key eyewitness Otilia Ruiz and the failure to call an available alibi witness, Anthony Tralongo. These errors were deemed prejudicial to Schulz's defense.
The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, asserting that counsel's lack of reasonable efforts to interview Ruiz fell below the standard of objective reasonableness defined in Strickland v. Washington, which undermined confidence in the trial's outcome and violated Schulz’s Sixth Amendment rights. The court acknowledged the deference owed to state courts under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) but concluded that the New York Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland in this case.
The ruling emphasized that counsel has a duty to conduct reasonable investigations, with prevailing norms—such as American Bar Association standards—serving as guidelines. The appellate court noted that this case was straightforward, with only two eyewitnesses and one alibi witness, highlighting that Ruiz was the more critical witness due to her direct involvement in the robbery. The conclusion was that any competent attorney would have made significant efforts to interview her prior to trial. The court did not address the issue of counsel's failure to call Tralongo, focusing solely on the failure to interview Ruiz.
Counsel for Schulz did not assert that the decision not to interview main eyewitness Otilia Ruiz was strategic; instead, he claimed attempts to contact her were unsuccessful. The court evaluated the reasonableness of these efforts, noting that counsel vaguely stated he sought to find Ruiz but faced difficulties. On the day of Ruiz's testimony, he reportedly asked the prosecutor for permission to interview her, which was denied. The trial court indicated that counsel could have sought an adjournment or the court's assistance to facilitate an interview, and the Appellate Division found counsel lacked due diligence in locating Ruiz. The prosecutor disputed that counsel had sought permission for the interview.
The New York Court of Appeals' reasoning for concluding that Schulz did not receive ineffective assistance regarding Ruiz is unclear. However, the court held that it was unreasonable for state courts to interpret counsel's performance concerning Ruiz as meeting the objective standard of reasonableness established by Supreme Court precedent in Strickland v. Washington. Furthermore, the state courts could not reasonably conclude that Schulz failed to demonstrate prejudice. Ruiz did not identify Schulz at trial and later identified Anthony Guilfoyle as the robber, suggesting that if she had been interviewed, she would have made the same identification, which would have supported her assertion that Schulz was not the perpetrator.
Ruiz’s identification of Guilfoyle could have countered any claims that she was too fearful or confused to identify Schulz and would have raised doubts about the credibility of eyewitness Anthony Velasquez, who had significant impeachment potential based on his conversation with law enforcement regarding a pending charge. Given the absence of physical evidence and reliance on a single eyewitness, the court emphasized that a lack of robust support for the verdict indicated that errors likely affected the outcome. Thus, the New York Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland in finding no ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to interview Ruiz. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and counsel's failure to call another witness, Tralongo, is not addressed.
