Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Dwayne Moore’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition alleged that the prosecutor failed to correct false testimony, trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce cell phone evidence, and the Commonwealth withheld exculpatory evidence. Applying AEDPA deference, the court concluded that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s rejection of these claims was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unreasonably applied Napue and related due-process principles in rejecting Moore's claim that the prosecutor knowingly used or failed to correct false testimony.
- Whether the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unreasonably applied Strickland in rejecting Moore's claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to use cell-phone evidence to establish an alternative timeline or impeach witnesses.
- Whether the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unreasonably applied Brady and related due-process principles, or unreasonably determined the facts, in rejecting Moore's claim that the Commonwealth withheld evidence concerning Washington's alleged gang affiliation and a Boston Regional Intelligence Center report.
- Whether Moore was entitled to a certificate of appealability.
Holdings
- The state court's determination that the prosecutor did not violate Moore's Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to correct Washington's testimony was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
- The state court's conclusion that Moore's counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to introduce or further use Martin's cell-phone records was not an unreasonable application of Strickland.
- The state court's conclusion that Moore was not denied effective assistance by counsel's failure to use phone records to impeach Brown, Cole, or Charlene was not an unreasonable application of Strickland.
- The state court's rejection of Moore's Brady claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and the state court's factual determinations were not shown to be unreasonable.
Key quotations
“In essence, habeas relief provides a “guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal.”” (II)
“It was not an unreasonable application of Napue for the SJC to conclude that Moore’s defense was not materially harmed by the prosecutor failing to correct additional inconsistencies in Kimani’s testimony.” (IV.A.2)
“The standards created by Strickland and § 2254(d) are both highly deferential, . . . when the two apply in tandem, review is doubly so.” (IV.B.1)
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition, D. 1.” (V)
Factual background
Moore was convicted of participating in a 2010 armed robbery and shootings in Boston after evidence connected him to Kimani Washington and placed him near the crime scene. The prosecution relied on Washington's testimony, phone records, cell-site data, eyewitness evidence, and evidence concerning Moore's statements and conduct. Moore argued that cell-phone records disproved the prosecution's timeline, that counsel should have used those records to impeach witnesses, and that the Commonwealth withheld evidence suggesting Washington's affiliation with the Columbia Point Dogs gang. The Massachusetts courts rejected those arguments and affirmed the conviction and denial of a new trial.
Procedural history
Moore was convicted at a second trial in Massachusetts state court of four counts of felony-murder in the first degree, home invasion, and armed robbery, and received two consecutive life sentences without parole. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions and the denial of Moore's motion for a new trial. Moore then filed this § 2254 petition alleging Napue, ineffective-assistance, and Brady violations. The district court denied the petition and allowed Moore until February 10, 2026, to address whether a certificate of appealability should issue.