Connolly v. Roden, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Connolly v. Roden, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/27

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1191

EVERETT H. CONNOLLY,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

GARY RODEN,

Respondent , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Rya W. Zobel , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Thompson, Ci r cui t J udge,

and Smi t h, * Di st r i ct J udge.

Rober t F. Hennessy, wi t h whom Thompson & Thompson, PC was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant .

Eva M. Badway, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Cr i mi nal Bur eau,wi t h whomMart ha Coakl ey, At t orney General of Massachuset t s, was onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

May 21, 2014

*Of t he Di st r i ct of Rhode I sl and, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/27

LYNCH, Chief Judge. Pet i t i oner Ever et t Connol l y seeks

t he gr ant of habeas cor pus vacat i ng hi s st at e cour t convi ct i ons

f r om2006 f or dr ug di st r i but i on and t r af f i cki ng on t he gr ounds t hat

t he st at e pr oceedi ngs vi ol at ed hi s f eder al Conf r ont at i on Cl ause

r i ght s, as art i cul at ed i n Mel endez- Di az v. Massachuset t s, 557 U. S.

305 ( 2009) . The Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t ( SJ C) had

acknowl edged t hat t here was Mel endez- Di az er r or but f ound i t

harml ess under a st andard equi val ent t o t he f ederal st andard under

Chapman v. Cal i f or ni a, 386 U. S. 18, 24 ( 1967) .

On f eder al habeas r evi ew, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he

pet i t i on, r easoni ng t hat t he stat e cour t s had al r eady f ound t hat

t he er r or was har ml ess and t hat t he pet i t i oner coul d not show

suf f i ci ent i nj ur y under t he hi ghl y def er ent i al st andar ds announced

by t he Supr eme Cour t i n Br echt v. Abr ahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 637

( 1993) , and Fry v. Pl i l er , 551 U. S. 112, 119- 20 ( 2007) . See

Connol l y v. Roden, No. 09- 11987, 2013 WL 139702, at *3 ( D. Mass.

J an. 11, 2013) .

We af f i r m. We concl ude t hat under t he Br echt st andard of

r evi ew, whi ch i s even mor e def er ent i al t han t he or di nar y st andar d

of r evi ew under t he Ant i t er r or i sm and Ef f ect i ve Deat h Penal t y Act

( "AEDPA") , 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) ( 1) , pet i t i oner has f ai l ed t o show

t he "subst ant i al and i nj ur i ous ef f ect or i nf l uence" r equi r ed t o set

asi de t he SJ C' s af f i r mance of hi s convi ct i on. Fry, 551 U. S. at 116

( quot i ng Kot t eakos v. Uni t ed St at es, 386 U. S. 750, 776 ( 1946) ) .

-2-


3/27

I .

The vast maj or i t y of t he key f act s of t hi s case ar e

undi sput ed. Massachuset t s l aw enf or cement of f i cer s began

i nvest i gat i ng Connol l y f or suspect ed cocai ne di st r i but i on i n 2003.

The i nvest i gat i on i ncl uded survei l l ance and obser vat i on by pol i ce

of f i cers, whi ch f ound Connol l y maki ng numerous apparent dr ug sal es

usi ng hi s mi ni van. Commonweal t h v. Connol l y, 913 N. E. 2d 356, 361

( Mass. 2009) . On t wo separate occasi ons i n August 2004, an

under cover of f i cer made cont r ol l ed pur chases of cr ack cocai ne f r om

Connol l y. Dur i ng t he f i r st pur chase, t he under cover of f i cer

obt ai ned what was l ater measur ed t o be 1. 2 gr ams of cr ack cocai ne

f or $200. I n t he second, t he of f i cer obt ai ned 0. 56 gr ams of cr ack

cocai ne f or $100.

I n l i ght of t he cont r ol l ed pur chases, t he pol i ce obt ai ned

an arr est war r ant f or Connol l y and a sear ch war r ant t o sear ch

Connol l y' s mi ni van and i t s occupant s. I d. at 362. The war r ant s

were execut ed on September 9, 2004. Dur i ng t he sear ch of

Connol l y' s mi ni van, t he pol i ce f ound a "l ar ge bal l " of crack

cocai ne, 1 " wr apped i n el ect r i cal t ape and l at er det er mi ned t o wei gh

124. 31 gr ams, " wedged under t he dashboar d. I d.

Connol l y was i ndi ct ed by a st ate gr and j ur y i n December

2004 on t wo count s of cocai ne di st r i but i on and one count of cocai ne

1 Cocai ne, or di nar i l y a powder , can be pr ocessed i nt o cr ackcocai ne, a sol i d, "r ock- l i ke" subst ance. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at esv. Br own, 450 F. 3d 76, 80- 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

-3-


4/27

t raf f i cki ng. 2 See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, 32A( c)

( di str i but i on) , 32E( b) ( 3) ( t r af f i cki ng) . At t r i al i n August 2006,

t he pr osecut i on i nt r oduced sever al pi eces of evi dence to pr ove dr ug

t ype and, as t o t he t r af f i cki ng char ge, quant i t y. 3 Wi t h r espect t o

t he cont r ol l ed pur chases, Det ect i ve Li eut enant J ohn Al l en, who had

25 year s of exper i ence i n nar cot i cs, t est i f i ed t hat he had

per sonal l y f i el d- t est ed t he subst ances at t he t i me of each of t he

t wo August 2004 pur chases and concl uded t hat t hey were cocai ne; t he

under cover of f i cer who made t he pur chases al so t est i f i ed t hat

Connol l y had sai d t he subst ances wer e cr ack cocai ne. Connol l y, 913

N. E. 2d at 375. Wi t h r espect t o t he cocai ne f ound dur i ng t he

mi ni van sear ch, Sergeant J ohn Mi l os, who had i nvest i gated hundr eds

of cocai ne di st r i but i on cases over sevent een year s of exper i ence,

t est i f i ed t hat f i el d t est s showed t he bal l r ecover ed f r om t he van

was cocai ne. I d. Tr ooper J ames Bazzi not t i , who had t hi r t een year s

of exper i ence i n conduct i ng dr ug sear ches, f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat

t he subst ance was cocai ne, and t hat t he bal l l ooked " l i ke a baked

pot at o, " was "bi gger t han a basebal l , " and was a "l ar ge bal l ,

2 Unl i ke f eder al dr ug t r af f i cki ng l aws, see, e. g. , 21 U. S. C. 841, Massachuset t s l aw does not di st i ngui sh between powdercocai ne and "cocai ne base, " or cr ack cocai ne.

3 For al l count s, t he pr osecut i on had t o pr ove t hat t hesubst ance i n quest i on was cocai ne. The di st r i but i on count s,however , di d not r equi r e any evi dence of quant i t y; t hat evi dencewas r el evant onl y to t he t r af f i cki ng count , f or whi ch t hepr osecut i on had t o pr ove a quant i t y of between 100 and 200 gr ams.See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, 32A( c) , 32E( b) ( 3) .

-4-


5/27

har d, " and was "a ver y sol i d pi ece" of cocai ne. I d. at 375- 76.

The j ury al so had di r ect physi cal access t o t he act ual cocai ne,

whi ch was sent t o the j ur y room, al t hough t he bal l was "more

f l aked, mor e cr ushed up" af t er t he chemi cal anal ysi s. I d. at 376.

The Mel endez- Di az probl em i n t he case ar ose because t he

pr osecut i on al so i nt r oduced a cer t i f i cat e f r om t he dr ug anal ysi s

l abor at or y expl ai ni ng t hat t he powder i n t he bal l was cocai ne and

wei ghed 124. 31 gr ams, wi t hout cal l i ng t he anal yst as a wi t ness and

so not maki ng t he anal yst avai l abl e f or conf r ont at i on. At t he t i me

t he cer t i f i cat e was admi t t ed, t he j udge i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat

under Massachuset t s l aw, t he pr osecut i on was not r equi r ed t o of f er

l i ve t est i mony f r omt he anal yst and coul d i nt r oduce t he cer t i f i cat e

al one wi t hout any adver se i nf erences bei ng dr awn due t o the

anal yst ' s absence. Connol l y obj ect ed t o t he admi ssi on of t he

cer t i f i cat e on Four t h Amendment gr ounds but not on Conf r ont at i on

Cl ause gr ounds. He di d not ask to cr oss- exami ne t he anal yst who

pr epar ed t he l ab cer t i f i cat e, nor di d he obj ect t o t he j ur y

i nst r uct i on on Conf r ont at i on Cl ause gr ounds. The cl osi ng j ur y

i nst r uct i ons al l owed t he j ur y t o consi der t he l abor at or y

cer t i f i cat e but caut i oned t hat " [ i ] t ' s f or you t o det er mi ne whet her

you credi t i t or not . . . . [ Y] ou' r e not compel l ed t o accept i t . "

Connol l y' s t heor y of t he case was t hat t he pr osecut i on

had not adequat el y pr oven t hat he was t he drug possessor . He

i dent i f i ed pot ent i al weaknesses i n t he t est i mony of t he

-5-


6/27

gover nment ' s wi t nesses t o ar gue that t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent

evi dence t hat he was act ual l y i nvol ved i n t he t wo cont r ol l ed

pur chases or t hat he was awar e t hat t he bal l of cr ack was i n hi s

van. Connol l y made no chal l enge t o t he quant i t y of cr ack f or

pur pose of t he t r af f i cki ng char ge. I n f act , i n cl osi ng ar gument s,

hi s at t or ney appear ed t o accept t he quant i t y at f ace val ue and

chal l enged onl y i dent i t y, ar gui ng: " [ t ] he Commonweal t h has t o pr ove

t o you beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat Mr . Connol l y knew t hat t hose

124 gr ams w[ er e] i n hi s vehi cl e on t he mor ni ng i n quest i on. I

suggest t o you t her e' s no pr oof of i t . "

The j ury convi ct ed Connol l y on al l count s. Fol l owi ng t he

convi ct i on, Connol l y appeal ed t o t he Massachuset t s Appeal s Cour t .

I n J anuar y 2009, t he SJ C t r ansf er r ed t he case t o i t s own docket sua

spont e f or di r ect r evi ew. Whi l e t he case was pendi ng i n t he SJ C,

t he U. S. Supr eme Cour t deci ded Mel endez- Di az v. Massachuset t s,

whi ch hel d t hat , absent a showi ng of unavai l abi l i t y, t he

i nt r oduct i on of a l ab cer t i f i cat e wi t hout t he oppor t uni t y t o cross-

exami ne t he t echni ci an who cr eat ed i t vi ol at es a def endant ' s Si xth

Amendment Conf r ont at i on Cl ause r i ght s. 557 U. S. at 311. Fol l owi ng

Mel endez- Di az, Connol l y pr esent ed t he narr ow argument t hat hi s

convi ct i on must be rever sed because t he t r i al j udge had gi ven a

cont empor aneous j ur y i nst r uct i on upon t he i nt r oduct i on of t he

cer t i f i cat es st at i ng t hat t he pr osecut i on was not r equi r ed t o

pr oduce t he l ab anal yst , i n vi ol at i on of hi s Conf r ont at i on Cl ause

-6-


7/27

r i ght s. He had not r ai sed t hat ar gument at any ear l i er poi nt i n

t he l i t i gat i on.

The SJ C r ead Connol l y' s ar gument char i t abl y i n hi s f avor

by consi der i ng not onl y the i nst r uct i on but al so whet her admi ssi on

of t he cer t i f i cat es t hemsel ves was er r or . See Connol l y, 913 N. E. 2d

at 374- 75. I t deci ded t hat t her e was Mel endez- Di az er r or i n

admi t t i ng t he cer t i f i cat es wi t hout pr esent i ng t he anal yst f or

cross- exami nat i on, but r ej ected Connol l y' s cl ai m t hat hi s

convi ct i on must be r ever sed on t hat account . Usi ng a st at e l aw

st andar d anal ogous t o t he f eder al st andar d f or harml ess er r or and

r eadi ng any pot ent i al wai ver pr obl em i n Connol l y' s f avor , t he SJ C

r easoned t hat any er r or "was har ml ess beyond a reasonabl e doubt "

because the j ur y had ampl e evi dence asi de f r omt he l ab cer t i f i cat es

f r omwhi ch i t coul d have concl uded t hat t he quant i t y of cocai ne was

bet ween 100 and 200 grams. I d. at 374- 76; cf . Chapman v.

Cal i f or ni a, 386 U. S. 18, 24 ( 1967) ( expl ai ni ng t hat f eder al

const i t ut i onal er r or i s har ml ess onl y i f t he r evi ewi ng cour t can

"decl ar e a bel i ef t hat i t was har ml ess beyond a r easonabl e doubt " ) .

I t l i kewi se r ej ect ed Connol l y' s ot her cl ai ms of er r or and af f i r med

t he convi ct i on.

Connol l y pet i t i oned f or habeas r evi ew i n f eder al di st r i ct

cour t under 28 U. S. C. 2254. He argued t hat t he st ate pr oceedi ngs

had vi ol at ed, i nt er al i a, hi s Si xth Amendment r i ght s under

-7-


8/27

Mel endez- Di az. 4 For t he f i r st t i me, he ar gued t hat t he pr ej udi ce

came f r om t he act ual admi ssi on of t he cer t i f i cat e wi t hout t he

anal yst ' s l i ve t est i mony ( r at her t han f r omt he cont empor aneous j ur y

i nstr uct i on) . 5 I n a t hor ough opi ni on, t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t

deni ed Connol l y' s pet i t i on. The cour t , appl yi ng t he Br echt

st andar d, concl uded that " t he er r oneous admi ssi on of t he chemi cal

anal yses di d not have a subst ant i al and i nj ur i ous ef f ect on t he

ver di ct wi t h r espect t o t he wei ght of cocai ne char ged. " Connol l y,

2013 WL 139702, at *3. The cour t r easoned t hat al t hough t he j ur y

l i kel y di d r el y on t he cer t i f i cat es, t he si gni f i cant amount of

ot her evi dence, "i ncl udi ng especi al l y t he j ur or s' oppor t uni t y t o

di r ect l y exami ne the cocai ne i t sel f , " meant t hat any i nj ur y f r om

admi t t i ng t he cer t i f i cat es was "not subst ant i al enough t o al l ow

habeas r el i ef under Br echt . " I d.

4 Connol l y al so made ot her cl ai ms of er r or no l onger ati ssue. The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed each of t hese ar gument s but di di ncl ude t hem al l i n t he l at er cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y. SeeConnol l y v. Roden, No. 09- 11987, 2013 WL 531126, at *1 ( D. Mass.Feb. 13, 2013) . At oral ar gument , Connol l y' s counsel r i ght l yconceded t hat t he Mel endez- Di az cl ai m was t he onl y vi abl e cl ai m.We do not di scuss t he ot hers.

5 Al t hough Connol l y' s ar gument has shi f t ed f r om t he way hepr esent ed i t t o t he SJ C, he has nonet hel ess sat i sf i ed t heexhaust i on r equi r ement s of 28 U. S. C. 2254( b) because t he SJ Cexpl i ci t l y r eached t he ar gument he i s now maki ng, so he woul d bebar r ed f r om r ai si ng t hem agai n i n st at e cour t under pr i nci pl es ofr es j udi cat a. See i d. 2254( c) .

-8-


9/27

I I .

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a pet i t i on f or

a wr i t of habeas cor pus de novo where, as here, t he cour t has t aken

no evi dence and has not made i t s own f act ual f i ndi ngs. See, e. g. ,

Ki r wan v. Spencer , 631 F. 3d 582, 587 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

A.

We begi n by descr i bi ng t he appl i cabl e l egal st andar ds

r egar di ng habeas and const i t ut i onal err or . I n 1967, t he Supr eme

Cour t i n Chapman v. Cal i f or ni a ar t i cul at ed t he const i t ut i onal

har ml ess er r or st andar d, whi ch pr ovi des t hat , on di r ect appel l at e

r evi ew, an er r or at t r i al af f ect i ng t he def endant ' s const i t ut i onal

r i ght s wi l l be deemed har ml ess onl y i f i t can be shown t o be

harml ess beyond a r easonabl e doubt . 386 U. S. at 24. The Cour t has

al so repeat edl y made cl ear , however , t hat t he st andar ds t hat appl y

on col l at er al r evi ew may di f f er f r om t hose t hat woul d appl y on

di r ect r evi ew. See Br echt , 507 U. S. at 634. To t hat end, t he

Cour t has hel d t hat a f eder al cour t on col l at er al r evi ew of a st at e

appel l at e cour t ' s appl i cat i on of Chapman shoul d not appl y t he same

har ml ess er r or st andar d but i nst ead shoul d use an "act ual

pr ej udi ce" st andar d. I d. at 637 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Lane,

474 U. S. 438, 449 ( 1986) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Speci f i cal l y, as t he Cour t expl ai ned i n Br echt v. Abr ahamson, a

habeas pet i t i oner i n such a case must show t hat t he er r or "had

subst ant i al and i nj ur i ous ef f ect or i nf l uence i n det er mi ni ng t he

-9-


10/27

j ury' s ver di ct . " I d. ( quot i ng Kot t eakos v. Uni t ed Stat es, 328 U. S.

750, 776 ( 1946) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . 6 That was t he

l aw bef ore Congr ess i nt ervened.

I n 1996, Congr ess passed AEDPA, whi ch pr ovi des t hat a

habeas pet i t i on may not be gr ant ed unl ess t he st ate cour t ' s

deci si on "was cont r ar y t o, or i nvol ved an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on

of , cl ear l y est abl i shed Feder al l aw, as det er mi ned by t he Supr eme

Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es. " 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) ( 1) . I n Mi t chel l

v. Espar za, 540 U. S. 12, 18- 19 ( 2003) ( per cur i am) , t he Cour t

appl i ed t he AEDPA st andard t o a st ate cour t ' s use of Chapman,

expl ai ni ng t hat "when a st at e cour t det er mi nes t hat a

const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on i s har ml ess [ under Chapman] , a f eder al

cour t may not award habeas r el i ef under 2254 unl ess t he

har ml essness det er mi nat i on i t sel f was unr easonabl e. " Fr y, 551 U. S.

at 119 ( descr i bi ng Mi t chel l ) .

Four year s l at er , t he Cour t r et ur ned t o t hi s f i el d i n Fr y

v. Pl i l er . I n Fry, t he st at e cour t s had not appl i ed Chapman t o

det er mi ne whet her a const i t ut i onal er r or at t r i al was har ml ess.

See i d. at 115. Wi t hout over r ul i ng Espar za, t he Cour t r ul ed t hat

6 Al t hough i t does not say so expl i ci t l y, Fry' s l anguage

st r ongl y i mpl i es t hat t he bur den i s on t he pet i t i oner . The FryCour t r eaf f i r med "t he r equi r ement t hat a pet i t i oner al so sat i sf yBr echt ' s st andar d" i n cer t ai n cases. 551 U. S. at 119 ( emphasi sadded) ; see al so Domi nguez v. Duval , 527 F. App' x 38, 40 ( 1st Ci r .2013) ( expl ai ni ng t hat habeas st andar ds under AEDPA " r equi r [ e] ahabeas pet i t i oner t o show a st at e cour t ' s unr easonabl e appl i cat i onof Supr eme Cour t l aw") .

-10-


11/27

t he Br echt st andar d st i l l gover ns, r egar dl ess of whet her t he st at e

cour t appl i ed Chapman. I d. at 119. As t he Cour t expl ai ned, t he

combi ned AEDPA/ Chapman st andar d announced i n Espar za, "whi ch

r equi r es onl y t hat t he st at e cour t ' s har ml ess- beyond- a- r easonabl e-

doubt det er mi nat i on be unr easonabl e, " i s " mor e l i ber al " t han t he

Br echt " act ual pr ej udi ce" st andar d. I d. at 119- 20. As a r esul t ,

t he Cour t hel d, t he Br echt st andar d "obvi ousl y subsumes" t he

Espar za st andar d, and f eder al cour t s need not f ormal l y appl y bot h

t est s; t he Br echt t est al one i s suf f i ci ent . I d. at 120.

The Court s of Appeal s have di f f er ed i n t hei r

i nt er pr et at i ons of Fr y. Some have concl uded t hat Fr y bar s t he use

of t he Espar za st andar d ent i r el y. See Wood v. Er col e, 644 F. 3d 83,

94 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) ( " [ W] e concl ude t hat t he ' unr easonabl e

appl i cat i on of Chapman' st andar d does not sur vi ve Fry. " ) . Ot her s

have concl uded t hat t he Supr eme Cour t mandated a t wo- par t t est ,

under whi ch a habeas pet i t i oner must f i r st show t hat t he st at e

cour t ' s appl i cat i on of Chapman was unr easonabl e under AEDPA and

t hen must show t hat t he st ate pr oceedi ngs had "subst ant i al and

i nj ur i ous ef f ect or i nf l uence" under Br echt . See J ohnson v.

Acevedo, 572 F. 3d 398, 404 ( 7t h Ci r . 2009) ( " I f t he st at e cour t has

conduct ed a har ml ess- er r or anal ysi s, t he f eder al cour t must deci de

whether t hat anal ysi s was a r easonabl e appl i cat i on of t he Chapman

st andar d. I f t he answer i s yes, t hen t he f eder al case i s over and

no col l at er al r el i ef i ssues. . . . I f t he answer i s no - - ei t her

-11-


12/27

because t he st at e cour t never conduct ed a har ml ess- er r or anal ysi s,

or because i t appl i ed Chapman unr easonabl y - - t hen 2254( d) dr ops

out of t he pi ct ur e and t he f eder al cour t must . . . appl y t he

Br echt st andard t o determi ne whether t he err or was harml ess. "

( emphasi s added) ) ; see al so Gongora v. Thal er , 710 F. 3d 267, 274

( 5t h Ci r . 2013) ( per cur i am) ( cont empl at i ng t wo- st ep pr ocess i n

di ct a) , r eh' g en banc deni ed, 726 F. 3d 701, cer t . deni ed, 134 S.

Ct . 941 ( 2014) .

St i l l ot her ci r cui t s have adopt ed a f l exi bl e appr oach,

expl ai ni ng t hat "a habeas cour t r emai ns f r ee" t o appl y t he Espar za

t est and end t he case i f t he st at e cour t ' s deci si on was r easonabl e,

but emphasi zi ng t hat t he cour t need not do that and may i nst ead "go

st r ai ght t o Br echt wi t h f ul l conf i dence t hat t he AEDPA' s st r i ngent

st andar ds wi l l al so be sat i sf i ed. " Ruel as v. Wol f enbar ger , 580

F. 3d 403, 413 ( 6t h Ci r . 2009) . 7 Thi s ci r cui t has not yet wei ghed

i n on t he i ssue. 8

7 Many of t he cases at t empt i ng t o appl y Fr y have al sogenerated vi gorous di ssent s. Gi ven t he apparent di sagr eement bot hbet ween and wi t hi n t he var i ous ci r cui t cour t s, t hi s f i el d may ber i pe f or Supr eme Cour t r evi ew.

8 Pet i t i oner ci t es Foxwor t h v. St . Amand, 570 F. 3d 414, 435

( 1st Ci r . 2009) t o ar gue t hat t hi s ci r cui t has al r eady r eached t hei ssue. Accordi ng t o Connol l y, Foxwort h announced yet anotheral t er nat i ve, t hat no def er ence t o t he st at e cour t i s owed at al l .We do not r ead Foxwort h t o support t hat concl usi on. Foxwort hexpl i ci t l y acknowl edges t hat Br echt i s "mor e f or gi vi ng" t han t heEspar za t est . I d. We r ead t hi s di ct a i n Foxwor t h as per mi t t i ng,but not r equi r i ng, di r ect appl i cat i on of t he Br echt st andar d.

-12-


13/27

We agr ee wi t h t he Si xt h Ci r cui t ' s f l exi bl e appr oach. As

t hat cour t not ed, Espar za has not been over r ul ed; consequent l y, we

do not r ead Fry t o bar t he use of t he Espar za t est ent i r el y.

Cont r a Wood, 644 F. 3d at 94. At t he same t i me, Fr y does expl i ci t l y

st at e t hat " i t cer t ai nl y makes no sense t o r equi r e f or mal

appl i cat i on of bot h t est s. " Fry, 551 U. S. at 120 ( f i r st emphasi s

added) . Thus, we do not f ol l ow t hose ci r cui t s t hat r equi r e a t wo-

st ep pr ocess. I nst ead, we not e t hat Fry est abl i shed t hat t he

Br echt st andar d i s har der t o sat i sf y t han t he Espar za st andar d, and

t hat any case wher e t he pet i t i oner can show pr ej udi ce under t he

Br echt st andar d wi l l necessar i l y meet t he Espar za/ AEDPA st andar d.

Ther e i s cl ear l ogi c t o t hat posi t i on: i f an er r or had a

"subst ant i al and i nj ur i ous" ef f ect on a j ur y' s ver di ct ( Br echt

st andar d) , t hen i t i s necessar i l y unr easonabl e t o concl ude t hat t he

err or was har ml ess beyond a r easonabl e doubt ( Espar za st andard) . 9

See Ruel as, 580 F. 3d at 412- 13.

Gi ven t hat l ogi cal f r amework, we concl ude that when a

st at e cour t deci des t hat a const i t ut i onal er r or i s har ml ess beyond

a reasonabl e doubt under Chapman, a f ederal cour t on habeas r evi ew

may choose between t wo equal l y val i d opt i ons. The cour t may appl y

Espar za and t hen move on t o the Br echt t est onl y i f t he st at e

9 Thi s r easoni ng appl i es when t he f eder al habeas cour t i sr evi ewi ng t he same r ecor d as t he st ate cour t . We need not consi dert he al t er nat i ve case.

-13-


14/27

cour t ' s deci si on was an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of Chapman.

Al t er nat i vel y, t he cour t may begi n wi t h t he Br echt t est di r ect l y. 10

B.

Wi t h t hi s f r amewor k i n mi nd, we t ur n t o t he f act s of t hi s

case. Thi s case l ends i t sel f t o t he f i r st appr oach, because t he

pet i t i oner has not met hi s bur den t o make t he t hr eshol d showi ng

t hat t he SJ C' s concl usi on t hat any er r or was har ml ess under

Chapman11 was unreasonabl e.

The er r or asser t ed, t o be cl ear , i s not t hat t he l ab

r epor t s cont ai ned f act ual i naccur aci es or wer e unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al

t o t he pet i t i oner . Rat her , Connol l y asser t s t hat t he

const i t ut i onal er r or was i n denyi ng hi m t he oppor t uni t y t o cr oss-

exami ne t he l ab t echni ci an who pr epar ed t he dr ug cer t i f i cat es. I n

f act , Connol l y' s br i ef t o t he SJ C di d not ar gue t hat t he Mel endez-

Di az er r or pr ej udi ced hi mas t o t he st r engt h of t he evi dence of t he

10 Al t hough t hi s cour t has not expr essl y consi der ed t hi squest i on, t he case i n whi ch we came cl osest t o t he i ssue i sconsi st ent wi t h t hi s appr oach. See Del aney v. Bar t ee, 522 F. 3d100, 105 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( appl yi ng Fry to cl ai m of const i t ut i onaler r or by consi der i ng but bypassi ng quest i on of whet her deci si on wasan unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw and movi ng di r ect l y t oquest i on of whet her er r or had subst ant i al and i nj ur i ous ef f ect onj ury' s ver di ct ) .

11 The SJ C di d not expl i ci t l y ci t e Chapman but i nst ead r el i edon an i dent i cal st at e l aw doct r i ne r oot ed i n t he f eder al case. SeePet r i l l o v. O' Nei l l , 428 F. 3d 41, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( expl ai ni ngt hat Massachuset t s st andard of harml ess er r or i s based on Chapman) ;Connol l y, 913 N. E. 2d at 374- 76 ( appl yi ng Massachuset t s st andar d) .We t r eat t hat appr oach as an appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw. SeePet r i l l o, 428 F. 3d at 45.

-14-


15/27

wei ght of cocai ne. I nst ead, he f ocused on t he i nst r uct i on gi ven

wi t h t he admi ssi on of t he cer t i f i cat es expl ai ni ng t hat , under a

st ate st at ut e, an anal yst was not needed t o appear i n per son.

Thi s, he ar gued, prej udi ced hi s abi l i t y t o ar gue t hat t he absence

of t he anal yst was a weakness i n t he pr osecut i on' s case. He di d

not argue t o t he SJ C, nor does he now argue t o us, t hat had he been

abl e t o conf r ont t he chemi st , t he out come woul d have been

di f f erent .

Nonet hel ess, t he SJ C di d consi der whether t he admi ssi on

of t he dr ug cer t i f i cat es t hemsel ves, not j ust t he i mpr oper j ur y

i nst r uct i on, pr ej udi ced Connol l y' s case. The SJ C expl ai ned i t s

r easoni ng as f ol l ows:

[ W] e concl ude t hat t he [ Mel endez- Di az] er r orwas har ml ess beyond a r easonabl e doubt . Weconsi der f i r st t he sal es t he def endant made t ot he undercover agent and then t he subst ancet hat was f ound i n hi s mi ni van. An undercoverof f i cer t est i f i ed t hat she bought f r om t hedef endant , i n t wo cont r ol l ed pur chases shor t l ybef or e hi s ar r est , a subst ance t hat t hedef endant cal l ed cr ack cocai ne. Det ect i veLi eut enant J ohn Al l en, an of f i cer wi t ht went y- f i ve year s of exper i ence i n nar cot i csi nvesti gat i ons, t est i f i ed t hat he f i el d t estedt he subst ances at t he t i me of each pur chaseand each t est ed posi t i ve f or cocai ne. He was,of cour se, avai l abl e f or cross- exami nat i on.Mor eover , t he quant i t y sol d was not essent i alf or di st r i but i on pur poses. See Commonweal t h

v. Ter r el onge, 42 Mass. App. Ct . 941, 941942,678 N. E. 2d 1203 ( 1997) .Wi t h r espect t o the cocai ne f ound i n

t he sear ch of t he def endant ' s mi ni van,Ser geant J ohn Mi l os, a pol i ce of f i cer wi t happr oxi mat el y sevent een year s of exper i ence i nnar cot i cs i nvest i gat i ons who had i nvest i gat ed

-15-


16/27

"hi gh hundr eds" of cocai ne di st r i but i on cases,was one of t he of f i cer s who f ound t he cocai nei n t hat vehi cl e. He t est i f i ed t hat he f i el dt est ed chunks of t he whi t e subst ance r ecover edf r om t he vehi cl e i mmedi at el y af t er i t wassei zed, bef or e t he subst ance was sent t o t he

St at e pol i ce l abor at or y, and t hat t hesubst ance t est ed posi t i ve f or cocai ne. Hei dent i f i ed t he bal l of cocai ne at t r i al as t heone t hat was r ecover ed f r om t he mi ni van.Tr ooper J ames Bazzi not t i , who had t hi r t eenyears of exper i ence conduct i ng dr ug sear cheswi t h a nar cot i cs det ect i on cani ne, al sot est i f i ed t hat t he subst ance appear ed t o hi mt o be cocai ne. Bot h of t hese wi t nesses wer eavai l abl e f or cr oss- exami nat i on.

The wei ght of t he 124. 31 grams f ound i nt he mi ni van was si gni f i cant because thedef endant was convi ct ed of t r af f i cki ng i ncocai ne bet ween one hundred and 200 grams.Ser geant Mi l os t est i f i ed t hat one- ei ght h ounceof cocai ne was t he equi val ent of 3. 5 gr ams andt hat one- quar t er ounce was doubl e t hat , orseven gr ams. From t hat evi dence, t he j ur ycoul d ext r apol ate t hat one ounce wast went y- ei ght grams and that one hundred gramswas t her ef or e l ess t han f our ounces. SeeCommonweal t h v. Thomas, 439 Mass. 362, 365,787 N. E. 2d 1047 ( 2003) ( j ur y expect ed t o appl yt hei r common sense and exper i ence) . TrooperBazzi not t i t est i f i ed t hat , when he f ound t hecocai ne i n t he mi ni van, i t was wr apped i nel ect r i cal t ape. He exami ned i t and i t l ooked" l i ke a baked pot at o" ; i t was " bi gger t han abasebal l . " The t r ooper descr i bed t he cocai neaf t er t he el ect r i cal t ape was unwound as a"l ar ge bal l , har d, " and "a ver y sol i d pi ece of. . . bl ock cocai ne. "

The unwr apped cocai ne was i nt r oduced i nevi dence and t aken t o t he j ur y room where t hej uror s coul d see t he amount f or t hemsel ves,

al t hough af t er t he chemi cal anal ysi s t hecocai ne was "more f l aked, more crushed up . . .t he or i gi nal package was mor e sol i d. " Thej ury coul d det er mi ne t hat a l ar ge, har d bal lwei ghed more t han f our ounces. We per mi t l aywi t nesses t o t est i f y to opi ni ons such as si ze,wei ght and di st ance, al l of whi ch r equi r e

-16-


17/27

j udgment . See Commonweal t h v. Moore, 323Mass. 70, 7677, 80 N. E. 2d 24 ( 1948) , ci t i ngCommonweal t h v. St ur t i vant , 117 Mass. 122, 123( 1875) ( "Ever y person i s competent t o expr essan opi ni on on a quest i on of . . . wei ght ofobj ect s . . . " ) . J ur or s can make t he same

j udgment s based on adequat e evi dence. Becauseevi dence ot her t han t he cer t i f i cat es ofanal ysi s est abl i shed t hat t he subst ances wer ecocai ne, and t hat t he wei ght of t he cocai ne i nt he mi ni van was over one hundred grams, t heer r or i n admi t t i ng t he cer t i f i cat es washar ml ess beyond a reasonabl e doubt .

Connol l y, 913 N. E. 2d at 375- 76.

Gi ven t hi s cl ai m of er r or and t hi s anal ysi s as t o bot h

dr ug t ype and wei ght , we cannot say that t he SJ C' s concl usi on was

an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of Chapman. " [ A] n ' unr easonabl e

appl i cat i on of ' [ Chapman] must be ' obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e, ' not

mer el y wr ong; even ' cl ear er r or ' wi l l not suf f i ce. ' " Whi t e v.

Woodal l , 134 S. Ct . 1697, 1702 ( 2014) ( quot i ng Lockyer v. Andr ade,

538 U. S. 63, 75- 76 ( 2003) ) . The har ml ess er r or i nqui r y depends

si gni f i cant l y on t he f act s and i s gui ded l ar gel y by t he st r engt h of

t he par t i es' cases. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Cabr er a- Ri ver a,

583 F. 3d 26, 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Car pent er , 403

F. 3d 9, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .

Here, t he government ' s case was suppor t ed by st r ong

evi dence apar t f r omt he l ab cer t i f i cat es. The t est i mony of hi ghl y

exper i enced pol i ce of f i cer s descr i bed t he dr ugs i n pl ai n t er ms t hat

a j ur y coul d easi l y under st and - - a "l ar ge bal l , har d, " t hat was

"bi gger t han a basebal l " and r oughl y si mi l ar i n appear ance to a

-17-


18/27

"baked pot at o. " Even wi t hout t he of f i cer s' descr i pt i ons, t he

j uror s wer e t ol d t he conversi on bet ween grams and ounces; j uror s

know how much f our ounces i s and were f r ee t o accept t hat 100

gr ams, t he st atut ory amount , was l ess t han f our ounces. They t hen

coul d j udge f or t hemsel ves. The j ur y al so saw t he har d bal l of

cr ack cocai ne, t hough i t was mor e f l aked and l ess sol i d t han i t had

been when or i gi nal l y f ound, i n t he j ur y r oom. To be sur e, t he l ab

cer t i f i cat es wer e the most di r ect way of det er mi ni ng t he wei ght of

t he dr ugs, but t he j ur y had obvi ous al t er nat i ve met hods avai l abl e

f or det er mi ni ng t he dr ug wei ght . 12 Mel endez- Di az i t sel f l ef t open

t he possi bi l i t y t hat , when ot her means of pr oof asi de f r om t he

i mpr oper cer t i f i cat e exi st , t he admi ssi on of t he cer t i f i cat e may be

har ml ess er r or . 557 U. S. at 329 n. 14.

We al so not e t hat Connol l y' s t r i al counsel never

r equest ed t hat t he chemi st be pr oduced t o be cr oss- exami ned as t o

t he wei ght of t he subst ance, suggest i ng he di d not t hi nk such a

l i ne of i nqui r y woul d be pr oduct i ve ( or even t hat he t hought i t

12 These obvi ous ot her pat hways di st i ngui sh t hi s case f r omt hose cases i n whi ch, on di r ect appeal , we have f ound non- harml essMel endez- Di az er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos- Gonzl ez, 664 F. 3d1, 6- 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( hol di ng Mel endez- Di az er r or non- har ml esswher e no ot her r el i abl e evi dence of dr ug i dent i t y exi st ed because

no wi t nesses had test i f i ed as t o "exper i ence or i nt i mat e knowl edge"of dr ug i nvest i gat i ons) ; Cabr er a- Ri ver a, 583 F. 3d at 36- 37 ( hol di ngMel endez- Di az er r or non- harml ess wher e onl y al t er nat i ve evi dence,eye- wi t ness t est i mony, was " l ess t han compel l i ng") ; cf . Uni t edSt at es v. Tur ner , 709 F. 3d 1187, 1195- 96 ( 7t h Ci r . 2013) ( hol di ngMel endez- Di az er r or har ml ess where " t here was consi derabl eevi dence" t o pr ove dr ug i dent i t y beyond t he chal l enged t est i mony) .

-18-


19/27

mi ght har m hi s cl i ent ) . 13 That poi nt i s r ei nf or ced by hi s f ai l ur e

t o make such an ar gument t o t he SJ C. I ndeed, hi s t r i al st r at egy

was t o chal l enge i dent i t y and t he r el i abi l i t y of t he pol i ce met hods

used, not t o cont est t he dr ug t ype or quant i t y. These f act s ar e

r el evant t o our assessment of whet her t her e i s Br echt or Espar za

er r or . Cf . Neder v. Uni t ed St at es, 527 U. S. 1, 16- 17 ( 1999)

( hol di ng t hat f ai l ur e t o i nst r uct j ur y on one el ement of cr i me was

har ml ess beyond a reasonabl e doubt when overwhel mi ng evi dence f or

t hat el ement exi st ed and def endant had not chal l enged t hat evi dence

or ar gued agai nst t hat el ement at t r i al ) .

The Massachuset t s cour t s have not been shy about f i ndi ng

r ever si bl e er r or i n cases i nvol vi ng Mel endez- Di az err or wher e t he

f act s wer e di f f er ent and j ur or s di d not have such ot her means t o

determi ne dr ug wei ght or i dent i t y. See, e. g. , Commonweal t h v.

Mont oya, 984 N. E. 2d 793, 800- 01 ( Mass. 2013) ( f i ndi ng non- harml ess

er r or wher e no i ndependent t est i mony about dr ug wei ght i n rel at abl e

t erms was gi ven and evi dence of j ur y conf usi on about dr ug wei ght s

exi st ed) ; Commonweal t h v. Ri ver a, 918 N. E. 2d 871, 874 ( Mass. App.

Ct . 2009) ( f i ndi ng non- har ml ess er r or wher e, i n "bor der l i ne" case,

j ury woul d be r equi r ed t o appl y met r i c syst em wi t hout t est i mony

about met r i c uni t conver si ons) ; Commonweal t h v. Rodr i guez, 913

13 I n f act , under Massachuset t s l aw at t he t i me, a def endantcoul d subpoena a l ab anal yst t o compel - - not j ust r equest - - l i vet est i mony. See Mel endez- Di az, 557 U. S. at 326. Connol l y chose nott o do so.

-19-


20/27

N. E. 2d 880, 887 ( Mass. App. Ct . 2009) ( f i ndi ng non- har ml ess er r or

wher e j ur y' s onl y met hod of det er mi ni ng wei ght wi t hout r el yi ng on

cer t i f i cat es woul d be "guesswor k" on a "cl ose quest i on") .

Par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of t hese di st i ngui shabl e cases, t he f act s of

t hi s case show t hat t he SJ C' s det er mi nat i on t hat t he er r or was

harml ess was not unr easonabl e, r egardl ess of whether we mi ght have

f ound t he er r or har ml ess on di r ect r evi ew. Cf . Whi t e, 134 S. Ct .

at 1702 ( " [ A] st at e pr i soner must show t hat t he st at e cour t ' s

r ul i ng on t he cl ai mbei ng pr esent ed i n f eder al cour t was so l acki ng

i n j ust i f i cat i on t hat t her e was an er r or wel l under st ood and

compr ehended i n exi st i ng l aw beyond any possi bi l i t y f or f ai r mi nded

di sagr eement . " ( quot i ng Har r i ngt on v. Ri cht er , 131 S. Ct . 770, 786-

87 ( 2011) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) ) .

Under Fr y, we may st op her e, as pet i t i oner i s not

ent i t l ed t o habeas rel i ef under t he Espar za st andar d. Nonet hel ess,

we br i ef l y expl ai n why, even i f t he SJ C' s appl i cat i on of a

Chapman har ml ess er r or t est was unr easonabl e, pet i t i oner st i l l

woul d not be ent i t l ed to habeas r el i ef because he cannot show er r or

under t he Br echt st andar d. We r et ur n t o t he nat ur e of t he cl ai med

pr ej udi ce f r om t he er r or .

As not ed, Connol l y has not chal l enged t he accur acy of t he

l ab cer t i f i cat es. Rat her , hi s cl ai mi s l i mi t ed t o t he depr i vat i on

of hi s oppor t uni t y t o cr oss- exami ne the l ab anal yst , and t he

er r oneous j ur y i nst r uct i on on t hat t opi c. Wi t hout a meani ngf ul

-20-


21/27

chal l enge t o t he act ual cont ent s of t he cer t i f i cat es, however ,

Connol l y cannot show subst ant i al and i nj ur i ous ef f ect s on t he

j ury' s ver di ct . See Domi nguez v. Duval , 527 F. App' x 38, 41 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) ( "The ar gument f or pr ej udi ce . . . addr esses not t he

cont ent s of t he repor t but t he absence of t he exami ni ng

pat hol ogi st . . . . But not onl y i s t he subst ance of t he

pat hol ogi st ' s hypot het i cal t est i mony a mat t er of pur e specul at i on,

t he possi bi l i t y t hat any such t est i mony woul d have swayed t he j ur y

t owar d accept i ng [ pet i t i oner ' s] account i s downr i ght

unr eal i st i c. ") . Connol l y does not cl ai mt hat , had he been abl e t o

cr oss- exami ne t he l ab t echni ci an, t he j ur y woul d have been more

l i kel y t o concl ude that t he bal l of cocai ne wei ghed under 100

gr ams. 14 Wi t hout any such cl ai m, he cannot show on habeas r evi ew

t hat t he admi ssi on of t he dr ug cer t i f i cat es had a "subst ant i al and

i nj ur i ous" ef f ect on t he j ur y' s deci si on. And even i f he made t hat

cl ai m, he has not put f or war d any evi dence i ndi cat i ng what woul d

have been r eveal ed on cr oss- exami nat i on, l eavi ng t he suppor t f or

hi s cl ai m a mat t er of "pur e specul at i on. " I d. That i s

14 I n f act, t he j ur y was expl i ci t l y i nst r ucted t hat t he l abcer t i f i cat es wer e "evi dence f or you t o consi der " onl y " i f you deemi t cr edi bl e. " We pr esume t hat , absent some i ndi cat i on t o t he

cont r ar y, t he j ur y f ol l owed t he cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons. See Fryer v.A. S. A. P. Fi r e & Saf et y Cor p. , 658 F. 3d 85, 93 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .Thus, i f t he j ury di d i n f act consi der t he cer t i f i cat es here, i tdi d so onl y af t er det er mi ni ng t hat t hey wer e cr edi bl e. Connol l ydoes not ar gue i n any way t hat a cross- exami nat i on of t he l abt echni ci an woul d have under mi ned t he cr edi bi l i t y of t hecer t i f i cat es .

-21-


22/27

i nsuf f i ci ent t o show a "subst ant i al and i nj ur i ous" ef f ect on t he

ver di ct.

I I I .

We af f i r m.

- Concur r i ng Opi ni on Fol l ows -

-22-


23/27

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge, concurring. Thi s case apt l y

i l l ust r at es t he l i mi t ed nat ur e of our habeas r evi ew even i n t he

f ace of an admi t t ed const i t ut i onal er r or . The myr i ad obst acl es t o

habeas r evi ew, especi al l y t he bar r i cades t hr own up and r ei nf or ced

by Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent , compel us t o af f i r m Connol l y' s

convi ct i on. Al t hough I f ul l y concur i n t he Cour t ' s j udgment , I

wr i t e separ at el y t o f l esh out why we ar e power l ess t o i nt er vene.

Put si mpl y, t he Supr eme Cour t has r ecent l y r ei t er at ed

t hat al t hough some f eder al j udges f i nd t he scope of habeas r evi ew

t o be t oo l i mi t ed, our aut hor i t y t o gr ant t he wr i t i s ci r cumscr i bed

by 28 U. S. C. 2254, a st atut e we are bound t o obey. Whi t e v.

Woodal l , 134 S. Ct . 1697, 1701- 02 ( 2014) . We may onl y gr ant habeas

r el i ef wher e t her e has been a mi sappl i cat i on of "cl ear l y

est abl i shed Feder al l aw" of suf f i ci ent sever i t y. Thal er v. Haynes,

559 U. S. 43, 47 ( 2010) ( per cur i am) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Si gni f i cant l y, t he r el evant f eder al l aw must have been

cl ear l y est abl i shed as of t he t i me of t he st at e cour t deci si on,

meani ng t hat subsequent devel opment s are not r el evant t o habeas

r evi ew. Wi l l i ams v. Tayl or , 529 U. S. 362, 412 ( 2000) .

Fur t her mor e, f or us t o f i nd a st at e cour t unr easonabl y appl i ed

cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw, i t s appl i cat i on "must be

' obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e, ' not mer el y wr ong; even ' cl ear er r or '

-23-


24/27

wi l l not suf f i ce. " Whi t e, 134 S. Ct . at 1702, ( quot i ng Lockyer v.

Andr ade, 538 U. S. 63, 75- 76 ( 2003) ) . 15

Ever yone agr ees a Mel endez- Di az err or occur r ed at

Connol l y' s t r i al , whi ch- - as t he maj or i t y opi ni on di scusses- -

r equi r es us t o engage i n a har ml ess er r or anal ysi s. The SJ C

det er mi ned i n Connol l y' s di r ect appeal t hat t he j ur y coul d f i nd

beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he drugs wei ghed over 100 gr ams

because the j ur y had t he act ual dr ugs wi t h t hem as t hey

del i ber at ed. Thus, t he SJ C concl uded t he Mel endez- Di az er r or was

harml ess. See Commonweal t h v. Connol l y, 913 N. E. 2d 356, 375- 76

( Mass. 2009) .

Thi s l i mi t s t he scope of our habeas r evi ew t o det er mi ni ng

whet her or not t he SJ C' s f i ndi ng of har ml ess er r or const i t ut ed an

unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw. I n

ot her wor ds, Connol l y needs t o demonst r at e t hat i t has been cl ear l y

est abl i shed as a mat t er of f eder al l aw t hat a l ay j ur y may not make

a f i ndi ng of dr ug wei ght based on the oppor t uni t y t o observe and

handl e t hose dr ugs. Thi s i s wher e our r evi ew r ushes headl ong i nt o

t he habeas wal l .

Ti mi ng i s everyt hi ng, and unf or t unat el y t i me was not on

Connol l y' s si de. The Massachuset t s appel l at e cour t s appear t o have

backed away f r om t he SJ C' s hol di ng i n Connol l y. Subsequent cases

15 These ar e but a f ew of t he i mpedi ment s t o habeas r el i ef .Ther e i s no need t o del ve i nt o any of t he ot her s her e.

-24-


25/27

have di st i ngui shed i t and concl uded a Mel endez- Di az er r or wi t h

r espect t o dr ug cer t i f i cat es was not har ml ess beyond a r easonabl e

doubt . J ust over a week af t er t he SJ C handed down Connol l y, t he

Appeal s Cour t f ound t hat t he err oneous admi ss i on of dr ug

cer t i f i cat es was not har ml ess wher e t he al l eged amount of dr ugs

exceeded t he st at ut ory t hr eshol d of 100 gr ams by 42. 5 games, and

were spr ead acr oss ei ght bags, one of whi ch cont ai ned 106. 5 gr ams

of drugs. See Commonweal t h v. Rodr i guez, 913 N. E. 2d 880, 887

( Mass. App. Ct . 2009) . The Appeal s Cour t di st i ngui shed Connol l y

and r easoned t hat i n t he absence of t he dr ug cer t i f i cat es,

"det er mi ni ng t he wei ght s of t he amount s at i ssue, par t i cul ar l y

whet her t hey were over or under 100 gr ams, woul d i nvol ve t oo much

guesswor k on t oo cl ose a quest i on i n t hese ci r cumst ances. " I d.

( ci t i ng Connol l y, 913 N. E. 2d at 376) . 16 The Appeal s Cour t has gone

on t o f i nd non- har ml ess er r or i n sever al opi ni ons i ssued subsequent

t o Connol l y and Rodr i guez. See Commonweal t h v. Ri ver a, 913 N. E. 2d

871, 874- 75 ( Mass. App. Ct . 2009) ( admi ssi on of cer t i f i cat es not

har ml ess er r or wher e mul t i pl e bags of her oi n and cocai ne wer e al l

wi t hi n 100 gr ams of t he st atut ory t hr eshol ds) ; Commonweal t h v.

DePi na, 917 N. E. 2d 781, 789- 90 ( Mass. App. Ct . 2009) ( f i ndi ng non-

harml ess er r or where al l eged amount of dr ugs exceeded st atut ory

16 I n ci t i ng t o Connol l y, t he Appeal s Cour t speci f i cal l y not edt hat case i nvol ved a "l ar ge, har d bal l " of cocai ne. I d. Theset er ms, however , ar e si mpl y not pr obat i ve of wei ght - - t hi nk t hei dent i cal l y- si zed al umi num ver sus st eel bal l .

-25-


26/27

t hr eshol d of 14 gr ams by 0. 24 gr ams and was contai ned i n 8 separ ate

bags) .

The SJ C i t sel f di st i ngui shed Connol l y i n Commonweal t h v.

Mont oya, 984 N. E. 2d 793 ( Mass. 2013) . Mont oya cont r ast ed t he

evi dence i n Connol l y, "a bal l of sol i d cocai ne t hat l ooked l i ke a

baked pot at o [ and] was bi gger t han a basebal l , " wi t h t he dr ugs i n

t hat case, 39. 74 gr ams ( whi ch exceeded t he t hr eshol d by

appr oxi matel y 11. 8 gr ams) "packaged i n t went y i ndi vi dual bags. "

I d. at 800- 01 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The SJ C went on

t o f i nd " [ t ] hat j ur or s had t he oppor t uni t y t o handl e t hi s evi dence

i n t he j ur y room, wi t hout i nst r ument s or any obj ect s of known

wei ght f or compar i son, does not r ender t he admi ssi on of t he dr ug

cer t i f i cat es har ml ess beyond a reasonabl e doubt , " and ci t ed t he

Appeal ' s Cour t s deci si ons i n Rodr i guez, Ri ver a, and DePi na wi t h

appr oval . I d. at 801.

Thus, i n Mont oya i t appear s t hat t he SJ C consi der ed t he

f act t hat t he dr ugs i nvol ved i n t hat case wer e spr ead acr oss

mul t i pl e packages t o be t he key di st i ngui shi ng f eat ur e bet ween i t s

deci si on t her e and i t s hol di ng i n Connol l y. I t i s at l east

debatabl e whether or not t he SJ C woul d come t o t he same resul t i f

pr esent ed wi t h Connol l y' s appeal t oday i n l i ght , especi al l y i n

l i ght of i t s appr oval of Rodr i guez, wher e one of t he bags of dr ugs

wei ghed mor e t han 100 grams.

-26-


27/27

Nevert hel ess, t he subsequent devel opment and potent i al

uncer t ai nt y wi t h r espect t o a mat t er of st at e l aw ar e si mpl y

i r r el evant t o our habeas r evi ew i n t hi s i nst ance. Connol l y has not

di r ect ed t hi s Cour t ' s at t ent i on t o any Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent

cl ear l y est abl i shi ng t hat a l ay j ur y may not - - consi st ent wi t h t he

f eder al const i t ut i on- - make t he dr ug wei ght det er mi nat i on on i t s

own. My own r esear ch has f ai l ed t o l ocat e any Supr eme Cour t

pr ecedent s i n t hi s ar ea ei t her . 17 As t he Supreme Cour t has r emi nded

us, t he absence of Supr eme Cour t hol di ngs i nevi t abl y means t hat

t her e i s no "cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw. " Thus, Connol l y' s

habeas pet i t i on i s doomed. Under t he st r i ct habeas st andar d, i t

mat t er s not whet her t he SJ C mi ght come to a di f f er ent concl usi on

t oday or whether we woul d have ar r i ved at a di f f er ent r esul t had

t hi s case r eached us on di r ect appeal . I n l i ght of t hese

r est r i ct i ons, we have no choi ce but t o di smi ss Connol l y' s habeas

pet i t i on.

17 We f ound admi ssi on of a dr ug cer t i f i cat e i n vi ol at i on ofMel endez- Di az was not harml ess er r or i n Uni t ed St ates v. Ramos-Gonal ez, 664 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , a case whi ch came t o us ondi r ect r evi ew. Our deci si on t her e pr ovi des no comf or t t o Connol l y,however , as we must conf i ne our i nqui r y t o t he Supr eme Cour t ' shol di ngs. See Whi t e, 134 S. Ct . at 1702 n. 2.

-27-

Documents

Connolly v. Roden, 1st Cir. (2014)