Ross Adams v. State of Maine

Summary

A United States District Court for the District of Maine magistrate judge recommends dismissal of Ross Adams’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his Maine conviction for unlawful sexual contact of a child. The recommended decision rejects his ineffective-assistance claims concerning witnesses, expert testimony, physical evidence, and prosecutorial comments, and rejects or finds procedurally defaulted his remaining claims. It also recommends denying an evidentiary hearing and a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. The state courts' treatment of the victim's recorded forensic interview was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Because the victim appeared and testified at trial, her imperfect memory did not establish a Confrontation Clause violation, and the record did not show that cross-examination was unreasonably restricted.
2. Adams failed to show that the state court unreasonably applied Strickland when it rejected his claims based on counsel's failure to call additional character, exculpatory, or expert witnesses.
3. Adams failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's decision not to obtain or introduce the victim's possible physical-examination results.
4. Any due process claim based on suppression, destruction, or nonpreservation of the physical-examination evidence would fail because Adams did not show that the evidence was favorable, that the State possessed or suppressed it, or that its absence caused prejudice.
5. Claims not included in Adams's request for discretionary review by the Maine Law Court were procedurally defaulted, and Adams failed to establish cause, prejudice, or actual innocence sufficient to excuse the defaults.

Questions Presented

1. Whether admission of the victim's recorded forensic interview violated the Confrontation Clause because the victim had an imperfect memory at trial.
2. Whether trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate or present additional character, exculpatory, expert, or physical-examination evidence.
3. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to allegedly improper prosecutorial comments and references to unfavorable allegations.
4. Whether the remaining claims were procedurally defaulted because they were not fairly presented through Maine's discretionary review process.
5. Whether Adams was entitled to an evidentiary hearing or a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed