McKinnon v. Ryan

Filing 25

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. I adopt the report and recommendation issued on April 11, 2017. On June 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued Weaver v. Massachusetts, which held: [W]hen a defendant raises a public-trial violat ion via an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, Strickland prejudice is not shown automatically. Instead, the burden is on the defendant to show either a reasonable probability of a different outcome in his or her case or... to show that the part icular public-trial violation was so serious as to render his or her trial fundamentally unfair. 37 S. Ct. 1899, 1911 (2017). Petitioner has not shown either prejudice or fundamental unfairness in the circumstances of this case.The petition for ha beas corpus relief (Docket No. 1) is DENIED. I DENY a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) on all objections because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
______________________________
)
MATTHEW MCKINNON,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
Civil Action
v.
)
No. 14-12005-PBS
)
KELLY RYAN, Superintendent,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________)
ORDER
August 7, 2017
Saris, C.J.
I adopt the report and recommendation issued on April 11,
2017. On June 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued Weaver v.
Massachusetts, which held: “[W]hen a defendant raises a publictrial violation via an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim,
Strickland prejudice is not shown automatically. Instead, the
burden is on the defendant to show either a reasonable
probability of a different outcome in his or her case or . . .
to show that the particular public-trial violation was so
serious as to render his or her trial fundamentally unfair.” 37
S. Ct. 1899, 1911 (2017). Petitioner has not shown either
prejudice or fundamental unfairness in the circumstances of this
case.

1

The petition for habeas corpus relief (Docket No. 1) is
DENIED. I DENY a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c) on all objections because Petitioner has not
made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.”
/s/ PATTI B. SARIS________________
Patti B. Saris
Chief United States District Judge

2