United States Third Circuit

District court's denial of petition for habeas relief as to petitioner's guilt phase claims is affirmed where: 1) the court's reasonable doubt jury instruction may have lessened the prosecution's burden of proof, but was not unconstitutional; 2) the Commonwealth's closing argument at sentencing did not violate petitioner's due process and Eighth Amendment rights; and 3) counsel's failure to ask the jury life-qualifying questions did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The court's grant of sentencing relief is vacated where petitioner cannot demonstrate that his counsel was deficient at sentencing based on the evidence on the record, and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing concerning the extent of petitioner's counsel's pre-sentencing investigative efforts to obtain mitigating evidence.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/01/2009
• Decided 07/01/2009
• Published 07/01/2009

Judges

• Before:  McKEE, SMITH, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Maureen Kearney Rowley, Billy H. Nolas (Argued), Victor Abreu, David Wycoff, Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District, of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, Attorneys for Brian Thomas., David Curtis Glebe (Argued), Thomas W. Dolgenos, Ronald Eisenberg, Arnold H. Gordon, Lynne Abraham, Robert M. Falin, Philadelphia, PA, Attorneys for Martin Horn, Donald Vaughn, Joseph Mazurkiewicz, and the District Attorney of Philadelphia County.