Magraw v. Roden

Filing 36

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER ON CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY entered. (Cicolini, Pietro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
GARY RODEN,
)
)
Respondent.
)
_______________________________________)
DAVID G. MAGRAW,

Civil Action No.
09-11534-FDS

ORDER ON CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
SAYLOR, J.
On March 22, 2013, this Court issued an order dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus.
To appeal the final order in a proceeding instituted under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the petitioner
must first obtain a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) from a circuit justice or a district court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A COA will issue only if the petitioner “has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). This standard is satisfied by
“demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of
[petitioner’s] constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
327 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Petitioner asserted four claims in support of his petition for relief: (1) that the evidence
was insufficient to support his conviction in violation of the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment; (2) that the prosecution made statements and elicited testimony during
the trial about certain incidents, including the first trial, that deprived petitioner of his
constitutional right to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) that the trial
court’s admission of certain hearsay statements violated his rights under the Confrontation
Clause of the Sixth Amendment; and (4) that the Commonwealth destroyed certain medical
evidence in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), who recommended that the petition be denied. Petitioner timely filed an
objection to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, challenging his findings
as to all of petitioner’s claims except the alleged Confrontation Clause violation. Upon de novo
review, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner’s contentions present colorable claims of a substantial showing of the denial of
his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, and it further appears that a reasonable
jurist could disagree with the Court’s conclusions.
Accordingly, a Certificate of Appealability is GRANTED as to petitioner’s claims that
the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; that the prosecution made statements and
elicited testimony during the trial that unconstitutionally prejudiced petitioner; and that the
Commonwealth unconstitutionally withheld certain medical evidence.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge
Dated: April 18, 2013

2