Habeas corpus – First-degree murder – Jury instructions

Listen to this article

Where a petitioner convicted of first-degree murder in Massachusetts state court sought habeas corpus relief, a federal judge rightly denied that relief request because (1) the state trial judge's jury instruction – that the prosecution did "not have the burden of proving that no one else may have committed the murder" – did not violate the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), and (2) the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent in ruling that the trial judge's limitation of the petitioner's examination of a certain witness, though error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Denial of writ of habeas corpus affirmed.

Farley v. Bissonnette (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-317-08) (9 pages) (Boudin, J.) (1st Circuit) Appealed from a judgment entered by O'Toole, J., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Brownlow M. Speer for the petitioner; Randall E. Ravitz, with whom Martha Coakley was on brief, for the respondent (Docket No. 08-1094) (Oct. 8, 2008).