Desordi v. Walker

Second Circuit

Desordi v. Walker

84 F. App'x 160

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 12, 2004

DocketNo. 02-2560

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 F. App'x 160 (Desordi v. Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Desordi v. Walker, 84 F. App'x 160 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[161]*161SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Victor DeSordi, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We assume the reader’s familiarity with the facts and underlying state and federal proceedings and hold as follows:

(1) In order to merit habeas relief on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, petitioner must show that the alleged misconduct denied him a fair trial. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 765, 107 S.Ct. 3102, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987). He has failed to make this showing. Putting the prosecutor’s remarks in context, as we must, see id. at 765-66, 107 S.Ct. 3102, we agree with the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court that the remarks were fair commentary and characterization of the evidence submitted at trial and defense counsel’s comments during summation, see People v. Desordi, 238 A.D.2d 738, 740, 656 N.Y.S.2d 505 (N.Y.App.Div.1997).

(2) In order to prevail on a claim of judicial bias, the petitioner must show that he did not receive a trial “by an unbiased and impartial judge without a direct personal interest in the outcome of the hearing.” Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 584, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964). After examining those portions of the record that the petitioner claims evince bias, we conclude that he has not made the requisite showing.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[161]*161SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Victor DeSordi, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We assume the reader’s familiarity with the facts and underlying state and federal proceedings and hold as follows:

(1) In order to merit habeas relief on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, petitioner must show that the alleged misconduct denied him a fair trial. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 765, 107 S.Ct. 3102, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987). He has failed to make this showing. Putting the prosecutor’s remarks in context, as we must, see id. at 765-66, 107 S.Ct. 3102, we agree with the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court that the remarks were fair commentary and characterization of the evidence submitted at trial and defense counsel’s comments during summation, see People v. Desordi, 238 A.D.2d 738, 740, 656 N.Y.S.2d 505 (N.Y.App.Div.1997).

(2) In order to prevail on a claim of judicial bias, the petitioner must show that he did not receive a trial “by an unbiased and impartial judge without a direct personal interest in the outcome of the hearing.” Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 584, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964). After examining those portions of the record that the petitioner claims evince bias, we conclude that he has not made the requisite showing.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 F. App'x 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desordi-v-walker-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack