Bramble v. Griffin

Bramble v. Griffin

Petitioner:	Anton Bramble
Respondent:	Patrick Griffin
Case Number:	1:2012cv01697
Filed:	April 2, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Brian M. Cogan
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
July 18, 2012	Filing 6 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, Petitioner's claims do no meet the standard for challenging his conviction, and accordingly, his petition is denied. A Certificate of Appealability and in forma pauperis status is granted as to the issues raised b y Bourdin's testimony only. Specifically, the following issues are certified: (1) was petitioner's counsel ineffective under Strickland for failing to move for a mistrial based on Bourdin's testimony when it became apparent that Carter would not testify; and (2), was the Appellate Division's alternative holding on the merits contrary to or an unreasonable application of Bruton or Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004). I grant the certificate as to these issues as the law is not well-defined on the ability of a prosecutor to sculpt a police officer's testimony to avoid Confrontation Clause issues. The "implied hearsay" inherent in such limited testimony is often elicited for a legitima te and indeed often necessary purpose - the prosecutor does not want the jury to think a police officer acted arbitrarily or to speculate as to an improper purpose in focusing on a deft, and some exposure to the investigative process is viewed as nec essary to dispel this concern. This case, in my view, presents a useful scenario to examine these issues because of the prosecutor's good-faith but mistaken belief that Carter would testify, thus resulting both in the opening statement's re ferences to Carter and Bourdin's testimony, which were received in anticipation of Carter's appearance. I therefore find that petitioner has made a substantial showing of the possible denial of a constitutional right. (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 7/18/2012) c/m by chambers with Unpublished Decision. Fwd. for Judgment. (Galeano, Sonia)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 18, 2012

Filing 6 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, Petitioner's claims do no meet the standard for challenging his conviction, and accordingly, his petition is denied. A Certificate of Appealability and in forma pauperis status is granted as to the issues raised b y Bourdin's testimony only. Specifically, the following issues are certified: (1) was petitioner's counsel ineffective under Strickland for failing to move for a mistrial based on Bourdin's testimony when it became apparent that Carter would not testify; and (2), was the Appellate Division's alternative holding on the merits contrary to or an unreasonable application of Bruton or Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004). I grant the certificate as to these issues as the law is not well-defined on the ability of a prosecutor to sculpt a police officer's testimony to avoid Confrontation Clause issues. The "implied hearsay" inherent in such limited testimony is often elicited for a legitima te and indeed often necessary purpose - the prosecutor does not want the jury to think a police officer acted arbitrarily or to speculate as to an improper purpose in focusing on a deft, and some exposure to the investigative process is viewed as nec essary to dispel this concern. This case, in my view, presents a useful scenario to examine these issues because of the prosecutor's good-faith but mistaken belief that Carter would testify, thus resulting both in the opening statement's re ferences to Carter and Bourdin's testimony, which were received in anticipation of Carter's appearance. I therefore find that petitioner has made a substantial showing of the possible denial of a constitutional right. (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 7/18/2012) c/m by chambers with Unpublished Decision. Fwd. for Judgment. (Galeano, Sonia)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bramble v. Griffin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Patrick Griffin
Represented By:	KINGS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE - GENERIC
Represented By:	NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE - GENERIC
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Anton Bramble
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?