Adams v. Graham et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/14/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 8/14/17)

FILED
~':l~T
cr'J~T
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C0ltlrn::!Ci C;: i ;:.;:YLA::)
LJ

FOR THE I>ISTlUCT OF MARYLAND
Sowltertl Dh.i.~ioJl
MICHAEL AI>AMS,

~r:.. ,r.:E; _~;
....

•

t. '(,_

Civil Action No. G,/H-16-193.t

•

R~srond~nts.

•

,__

•

RICHARD GRAHAM, e! (/1.,

•

~'~T!::c.:

CLEr.::'S

•

•

1011 AUG 11.1 P 2: 111

*

P~tition~r,

s. r~s

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael Adams ("Adams"

or "P~titioner")

who is sell~represented.

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.c. ~ 2254. attacking
the Circuit Court li)r Montgomery

County. Maryland

handgun.

ECI' No. I. Respondents.

Petitioner

is con lined and the Attorney

No. 11. to which Petitioner

However.

General of the State of Maryland.

has replied. ECF No. 14.1 Having reviewed

Institution
libl

an Ans\\er.

the parties'

lOCI'

submissions.

hearing. Sre Rule 8(a). R/llrs (j()\'I!I'ning Sec/ion ]]5-1

(petitioner

not entitled to a hearing under 28LJ.S.C.

li)r the li)l1owing re~sons. the Court shall require supplemental

brieling

by the Respondents.

I Petitiollcr

believed

his Reply. captioned

as a "Traverse:'

had !lot been received.

which is docketed as Eel-" No. 15. The t\\'o documc.:llts arc identical.

in

where

Dis/riel CO/lrts and Loe. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2(16); sre also Fishrr \',

Lee. 215 F. 3d .t38. 455 (.tth Cir. 2(00)

~2254(e)(2».

his 2009 convictions

munler and use of a

the Warden of Western Correctional

the court finds no need lill' an evidentiary
Casr,l' in /he Uni/edS/a/r,l'

for first-degree

filed this timely

and resubmitted

the document.

I.

HACKGIWlIND
A .• Jury Trial
In Novcmber

of 2008. Petitioncr

was tricd by a jury sitting in thc Circuit Court I(lr

Montgomery

County. See ECF No. 11-1 at 32-38. As outlincd by thc Court of Special Appeals

of Maryland.

ECF No. 11-5 at 2-12. thc relevant filets werc prescnted

at trial:

[A]t appro;.;imately 10:00 p.m .. on Fcbruary 8. 2008. one man shot another
ncar the 300 block of King Farm Boulevard in Montgomery County.
Witnesses

rcportcd thc I(lliowing sequencc

in or

of events.

Barry and Barbara Gordon. rcsidents of a townhouse across the street Ihllll
[Adams' 1 home at 232 King Farm Boulevard. testilicd that at about 10:00 p.m ..
on Fcbruary 8. 2008. they heard a loud crash outside their housc and "\"lliecs that
werc vcry loud yclling at each other:' The Gordons heard onc person. ,dlO
sounded likc he was pleading. saying with a trcmor in his voice. "You don't hU\'C
to do this. man:' Aner hearing those words. they heard two sounds that sounded
like gunshots.
Upon looking out his window. Barry Gordon saw one person huddled on the
ground. with a man in swcat e10thes "hovering ovcr" that person. Then. the man
in swcat e10thes turncd and walked back down thc sidewalk "in a vcry casual
manner:' The man turned. looked back. hesitatcd I(lr a momcnt. and then wcnt
into the unit at 232 King Farm Boulevard-Adams's
residenee-wherc
Mr. Gordon
saw him pacing inside ....
Montgomery
County Police Officer Antonio Copeland and two othcr ofliecrs
were dispatched
to the shooting. When they arrived at the scene. Copeland
observed a man lying on his sidc with blood coming out of his 1110uth. Copeland
rolled the victim over to look for elllranee/e;.;it wounds and 1l11ll1dan entranec
wound on the man's lower back. What appeared to be a small caliber bullet fell
out li'OIll the area of the entrance wound. Copeland attempted to perl(lfIll CPR on
the victim but was unsuccessful.
[Tlhe victim. identilied as Jason IIadeed ...
was pronounced
Grovc Ilospitaijust
aner II :00 p.m. on February 8. 2008 ....

dead at Shady

Montgomery County Police Department Forcnsie Specialist Gary Arter respondcd
to the erimc scene later that night to collect evidence. When he arri"ed at 232
King Farm Boulcvard. hc observed that thc front door was locked and showed no
signs of I()feed entry or kick marks. Upon entering the home. he saw nothing in

disarray ...
In the mastcr bcdroom.
ammunition on the night stand.

Artcr

IlHmd a handgun

casc and livc

Artcr collected the projcctilc of thc tircd bullct Ofliccr Copeland had IlHmd on
Jason's body as wcll as a live round ofammunitionflHmd
on thc stcps ofAdams's
rcsidencc .... Forensic Specialist Chcrc Halma also locatcd a sccond livc round of
ammunition on a Catl1ct runner insidc thc homc ...
. .. On thc evcning of the shooting.
Adams's mothcr. Dody Picrcc. and hcr livcin "good lfiend:' Edward Heidecker. werc in their Vicnna. Virginia homc. At
approximatcly
II :00 p.m .. Ilcidecker wcnt downstairs to lind Adams and his
mothcr talking in thc dining room. Adams told Picrcc and Ilcidcckcr
that
somconc namcd Jason Hadced had bargcd into his condo. uscd languagc so vile it
could not bc rcpeatcd in Iront of his mothcr. and hit him. Adams also said that
Jason had attcmpted to takc his laptop computer and other of his "stuff:'
Adams was physically unharmcd but was in an apparcnt stalC of tcrror. Ilc statcd
that hc had shot Jason. and thc gun hc had uscd was in his car. Hct\\ccn roughly
11 :30 and I I :45 p.m .. Ilcidccker and Picrce callcd thc pol icc to advisc that
Adams had becn involvcd in a shooting. Whcn thc police arrivcd. Adams turncd
himself in and was takcn into custody without incident. ...
Stevcn Iladccd. Jason Iladccd's
unclc and li'icnd. stat cd that his ncphcw. a
pcrsonal traincr \\"ho conditioncd
athlctcs Illl' sports. had introduccd him to
Adams. a Illl"Incr golfcr. Ilc and his ncphcw had invcstcd in Adams's company.
Adams Edge Consulting. which involvcd sports handicapping and gambling. For
thc first few months. Stcvcn Iladecd rcccivcd rcgular invcstmcnt statcmcnts from
thc company but cvcntually thc statcmcnts ccascd ....
Whcn Jason bccamc :I\\"arc that Adams had no moncy to rcturn to his invcstors.
Jason told [Adams] that a group ofinvcstors
planncd to go to thc policc ....
Allcr thc State rcstcd its casc. Adams moved for judgment of acquittal on thc
count of lirst dcgrce murdcr. as no evidcncc of prcmcditation
had bccn shO\\I1.
and on the use of a handgun in a crimc of violcnce count. arguing that thcrc was
no cvidcnce that Adams. spccifically. had committed any crimc of violcncc. Thc
court dcnicd thc motion.
In his casc in chic!: Adams did not dispute that it was hc who had shot Jason. lie
procceded on a thcory of sclf~defensc. Dody Picrcc tcstificd that in 2007. awarc
that hcr son's busincss was lililing .... [shclloancd
him $30.000. as shc kncw that
his elicnts wcrc pressing Adams for thc rcturn of thcir lost moncy. In Dcccmbcr
2007. shc met with Jason. at his rcquest. whcrcupon Jason advised hcr that hcr
son owcd him money. that hc wantcd thc rcturn of his moncy. that her son ncedcd
to gct a job to pay his invcstors back. and that "[Jason] kncw pcoplc that could
hurl pcople:'

,

.'

Alicr that mccting. Adams spcnt morc timc at PictTc's housc in Virginia bccausc
hc said hc was afraid. On January 10.2008. Adams's ccll phonc rang all day long:
hc said it was Jason calling. With Adams gctting incrcasingly upsct about thc calls
and with his mcntal condition dctcriorating.
Picrcc accompanicd
Adams to thc
Woodburn Ccntcr. a mcntal hcalth ccntcr that handles "pcople with dcprcssions
and addictions:'
...
Adams madc periodic cfttms to rcpay Jason. but hc askcd Jason not to tcll his
othcr invcstors of his financial problems ....
Evcntually. \\ hcn appcllant was no
longer able to repay evcn Jason. hc decided to alcrt his othcr investors of thc
problems with his busincss. a dccision that displcascd
Jason. Adams said that
oncc Jason was no longcr receiving moncy
from him. Jason \muld "cuss and
ycll" at him. and hc told Adams hc would takc appcllant's TV in licu of S 1.000
owed. Jason became incrcasingly upset and demanded more of Adams's pcrsonal
propcrty ....
On thc morning of Fcbruary 8. 2008. Adams tcstificd that Jason knockcd on his
door. but when he did not answcr. Jason leli a voice mail messagc and a tcxt
mcssagc. in rapid succcssion.
that indicatcd his angcr. At around 10:00 p.m ..
Adams hcard anothcr knock on his door. and. thinking it was his upstairs
ncighbor ....
answcrcd thc door. Instcad. it was Jason. who I()rccd his way in and
told Adams hc was a "slimc bucket" and thc "scum of thc carth" and uscd "a lot
of cuss words:' Then. Jason hit Adams twicc in thc stomach and thrcatcncd to
"bcat thc shit out of[ him
and kill him.

r

While Adams was rccovcring his brcath. hc saw Jason wrapping thc cord around
his laptop as if to take it. Adams dcmanded the rcturn of his laptop whcrcupon
Jason e1bowcd him in thc stomach. Adams wantcd Jason out of his housc. so
while Jason was rummaging through his things. Adams rctricvcd a "small pistol"
Irom a kitchen drawcr.
Ilc turncd to Jason and said. "Gct thc fuck out of my housc:' \\'hile holding thc
gun in his hand. Noticing the gun. Jason "camc at" Adams and Adams "rcactcd"
by liring thc gun. Bccausc Jason was still moving around. Adams did not think hc
had bcen hit.
"Somehow:'
the two exited Adams's housc. and while on thc Iront porch. Jason
camc at Adams again. and Adams reactcd again. firing thc gun two morc timcs.
Jason then startcd moving down the strcct but soon tell ....
. . . Adams wcnt to Jason but thcn rcturncd 10 his apartmcnt. Ilc lookcd out his
window and saw that somcone was hclping Jason. Not knowing Jason's condition
or what to do.IAdamsl
dccidcd to go to his mothcr's housc ....
On cross-cxamination.
Adams admittcd that alier thc gun went otT insidc his
apartmcnt. hc and Jason wenl outside tOQether. but that Jason cxitcd thc housc

4

first. ... Adams conceded that he could have closed the front door. ealled 911.
gone upstairs to hide. or gone into the garage and driven away. Instead. he lired
the gun at Jason again. evcn after it had jammed. Adams admitted that he I[tiled
to call 91 I or to render any medical assistance to Jason. lie characterized
the
shooting episode as him heing scared of IJasonl and defending himselfl.1 and that
he just wanted Jason to leave his home.
Atier the defense rested. Adams renewed his motion leJr judgment of acquittal on
the ground that the State had shown no premeditation. The court again denied the
motion ....
ECF No. 11-5 at 2-12.

Based on the evidence

adduced at trial. the jury convicted

Adams of lirst

of a handgun. See ECF No. 11-1 at 38: ECF No. 1-4 at 2. On

degree murder and unlawletluse

January 30. 2009. Adams was sentenced

by the court to life imprisonment

plus a consecuti\'c

ten

years. See ECF No. 11-1 at 40: ECF No. I at I.

B. Direct Appeal
On appeal to the Maryland
challenged

his conviction

Jason Hadeed's

reputation

claiming

convictions.

opinion

and (2) by not permitting

testimony

Adams to estahlish
that was consistent

the delcnse theory of the case. lOCI' No. 11-5 at 2. In an

filed on January 6.2011.

/<1.Adams suhsequently

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Adams. through counsel.

the trial court erred: (1) hy not permitting

fe)r violence.

with and would have holstered
unreported

Court of Special Appeals.

the Court of Special Appeals affirmed Adams'

filed a petition fe)r a ".,.il ot'cerlio/'{/ri

requesting

that the

further review his case. ECF NO.1 1-6 at 2-17. The writ was

denied on May 23. 2011.2 !d at

J

8.

1 Petitioner did nol seek further revicw in the Supreme Court. Accordingly. his judgment of conviction hecame linal
for direct appeal purposes on August 21. 10 I I. \vhen the time for sl,.'c"ing review in the Supreme Coun c.\pircd .. "'1.'1.'
Sup. Ct. Rule 13.1 (requiring petition for a writ of certiorari to be tiled within C)O Jays
which review is sought).

5

or datc ofjudgmcnt

from

C. Petitiun fur I'ost-Cunvietiun
On February 29. 2012. Petitioner

fur Leave to Appeal

Ii led a petition for post-conyiction

relicf in thc Circuit

County. ECF NO.1 at 3: ECF No. 11-1 at 44. This pctition was

Court I(Jr Montgomcry
withdrawn

Relief and Application

on January 29. 2014. ECF No. 11-1 at 47. A subscquent

2014./d. As supplemented.

litigated. and construed

petition was filed on April 3.

by the court without objection.

alleged. inler olio.' that the trial court erred by allowing

the jury on sewral

course of the trial. but particularly

during the hours-long

the hallway outside the courtroom

where mcmbers

discussion

occasions

of instructions.

of the decedent Jason Iladecd's

the petition
during thc
to remain in
nunily and

friends were located. thus denying Adams his right to due process. ECF No. 1-4 at 103
At the post-cOlwiction
of inelTectiye assistance

hearing. Adams also asscrted.

of trial and appellate

the jury to remain in the hallway with Iladeed's

for the iirst timc. additional

claims

counscl related to thc trial court crror in allowing
family. ECF No. 1-4 at 12. By opinion and ordcr

Illed on August 25. 2015. the court granted Adams the right to lile a belated motion liJr
reconsideration.

but otherwise

denied post-conviction

relief: ECF No. 1-4 at 2.

Adams then sought Ieaye to appeal that adverse deeision
raising only the claim that the trial court erred in permitting

to the Court of Special Appeals.

the jurors to remain in the hallway.

thus denying Adams his right to due process and an impartial jury. ECF No. 11-7 at 6. In an
unreported.
deelined

per curiam opinion

liled on March 18.2016.

the intermediate

appellate court

to review the casco EeF No. 1-5 at 2.
D. Federal Habeas Petition
In Petitioner's

incffective

.1

instant ~ 2254 petition. he elaims that trial and appellate

!(Jr failing to arguc that the trial court abused its discretion

Trial counsel brought

10

counsel "'erc

by I~liling to mir dire thc

the trial court's attention that "[alpparcntly. during the brenk. in the presence urthe jury.

the Hadecd nUllilv is out there. talking about how the Court has now made
in their own hOI1l~'" 5;1!(' ECF No. I-.tal 10.

6

it

okav for somcbod\' to shoot sOlllchod\'
~
~

jury to determine

what they heard, and whether they could remain impartial alier spending

in the courthouse

hallway with Hadeed's

II.

tiunily. ECl' NO.1 at 5.

STANDARD OF' RF:VIEW
An application

Constitution
U.S,c.

til[ writ of habeas corpus may be granted only for violations

or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.c.

~ 2254 sets til[th a "highly dcfcrcntial

\'. ,1/1//1)lIy, 521 U.S, 320, 333 n.7 (1997):
standard
doubt.

hours

is "diftieult

CIIIII'II

omitted):

Sl'l'

thc bcnelit ofthc

marks and citations

(2011) (state prisoner must show state court ruling on claim prcscntcd

in existing

that thcrc was an crror wellundcrstood

law beyond any possibility

1) rcsulted in a decision

presentcd

opposite

and arrives at a result opposite

dctcrmination

28 U.s.c.

application

of the lilcts in light of

~ 2254 (d). A statc adjudication

is

under ~ 2254(d)( 1) where the statc eourt 1) "arrivcs at

to that rcached by [thc Supreme]

lilets that are materially

on

by the Supreme Court of thc Unitcd States: or

in the state court procccding.
tederallaw

and

corpus unlcss the statc's adjudication

that was based on an unreasonable

contrary to clearly cstablished

in

til[ fair minded disagrccment")).

that was contrary to. or involved an unrcasonahle

federal law. as dctermincd

2) resulted in a decision

"eonti'onts

dccisions

a/so lVIIi/I' \' Woodall, 134 S. Ct 1697. 1702 (2014) (quoting !!arrillg/oll \'. Ricll/a.

oJ: clearly establishcd

a conclusion

UIIl/1l

rulings'"

a/so 1M/ \'. ('0111',543 U.S. 447 (2005). Thc

A Icdcral court may not grant a writ ofhabcas

the evidcnee

statc-court

563 U.S. 170. 181 (2011) (intcrnal quotation

tederal court was "so lacking in justitication

the merits:

tilr cvaluating

to mect." and requircs courts to give state-court

\', I'ill/III/S/l'!",

562 U.S. 86,103

comprehcndcd

~ 2254(a). The federal habeas statute at 28

standard

Sl'l'

of the

indistinguishable

to Ithc Suprcme

Court on a qucstion of law'" or 2)

Ii'om a relevant Suprcme

Coul1 prcecdcnt

Court]."' Wi/lial/ls \'. "iily/or, 529 U.S. 3(i2, 405

(2000).

7

III.

DISCUSSION
Rett)rc applying

cognizable
presented
couched

this standard.

thc Court must lirst detcrmine

for federal revicw and. iI'deemed cognizable.
for adjudication

the sccond threshold

whether the claim has been fully

in the state courts. The ineffective

as a denial of due process and arguably
as to his ineffective

dcfaultcd.

Nonetheless.

that has been fully presented
court error emanating

ineluding

thc victim's

howe\'Cr. fails to meet

and

mlS

prcjudiced

by trial

County practicc of allowing jurors to remain in the

where jurors could be exposed to comments

made by the public.

fiunily and Ii'iends.

A criminal defendant's

right to have an impartial jury trial is one of the most fundamental

rights under the Unitcd States Constitution.

See Strick/and

(1984 ).~ In criminal

Supreme Court authority

"cxtcrnal

is

that portion of the due process claim

namely. whether Petitioner

Ii'om the Montgomery

hallway outside the courtroom.

Petitioner.

relie!: the e1aim is unexhausted

this court \\'ill examine

li)r litigation.

claim as prescnted

of counsel claim. Because hc did not raise it

when sceking leave to appeal the denial of post-conviction
procedurally

assistance

is cognizable.

assistancc

whether each claim is

trials. wcll-entrenched

causcs tending to disturb the [jury'sl

at \cast until their harmlessness

\'. lVl/.\hingtll/l.

cxcrcisc ofdcliberate

is made to appcar."

,\folio.\'

1'.

466 U.S. 668. 685

"absolutely"

li)[bids

and unbiasedjudgmcnt

...

United States. 146 U.S. 140. 149-

50 (1892) (citcd in Near \'. ('zlIIning//11I11. 313 F.2d 929. 933 (4th Cir. 1963 )).
Established
contact. or tampering

Icdcrallaw

further provides that any unauthorized

directly or indirectly.

"private communication.

with a juror during a trial about the matter pending

beltlre the jury is. li)r obvious reasons. deemed presumptively

prcjudicial:'

Rellllller

1'.

United

~ This right is also well defined under Maryland law. "The potency ofthc Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial relics
on the promise that a defendant's rate will be determined by an impartial fact limier who depends solely on tht..'
evidence and argument introduced in open court:' Wright \', 5i11l11!. 131 Md./\pp. 243. 253 (2000) (quoting AI/ell ",
Sla/e.

89 Md. App. 25. 42 (1991)).

Sla/es, 347 U.S. 227. 229 (1954). and also compels a criminal trial court to considcr thc
prejudicial

effect of an)' external contact that has a ..tendency"

the verdict.

of whcthcr it is about the matter pending bclelrc thc jury. Mallox. 146 U.S. at 150-

irrespective

51. Morcovcr.

such contact nced not amount to a "communication"

inquiry into possiblc

prejudice

arising Irom a juror's

job application

trying the case); Mallox, 146 U.S. at 150 (recognizing

rcading newspapers).
where members

The potential

ofajury

ovcrheard

le)r extraneous

inquiry

the baililTmake

transcript

where the qucstion

in thc officc of thc

the prejudicial

potential of

influence also has been identified
disparaging

Parker \'. Clladden. 385 U.S. 363.365 (1966), Ilowever.
post-conviction

to trigger judicial

See SlIIi/h \'. Phillips. 455 U.S. 209. 212-15 (1982) (requiring judicial

into possiblc prcjudice.

prosecutor

to inlluence

comments

Respondents

in cases

about the defendant.

have not provided

the

of error was argucd. nor have thcy brieled thc issuc

on its merits.

IV,

CONCLUSION
I'or these reasons. within 30 days. Respondcnts

includc a post-conviction

hearing transcript

shall supplcmcnt

thcir Answcr and

and any othcr relcvant exhibits. A separate Ordcr

follows.

Date:

Id l.\) v.,h 1.

&//

2017

GEORGE

t

-

IIAZEL

United Statcs District Judge

9