Neeper v. Warden, NHSP

2011 DNH 172

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: October 18, 2011
• Docket: CV-11-135-PB
• Status: Published

Opinion

Neeper v . Warden, NHSP CV-11-135-PB 10/18/11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jay Neeper

v. Case N o . 11-cv-135-PB Opinion N o . 2011 DNH 172 Richard M. Gerry, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Jay Neeper was convicted of aggravated felonious sexual assault

and sentenced to a term of six to fifteen years in the New Hampshire

State Prison (ANHSP@). His conviction was affirmed by the New

Hampshire Supreme Court on March 2 5 , 2010. On March 2 2 , 2011, Neeper

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court, arguing

that the state trial court violated his rights under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments by failing to declare a mistrial when the

prosecutor made references to Neeper=s silence after being given

Miranda warnings. Richard Gerry, Warden of NHSP, moves for summary

judgment. Neeper objects and cross-moves for summary judgment in

his favor and for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. For the

reasons discussed below, I grant the Warden=s motion. I. BACKGROUND1

A. The Assault

Neeper's 14-year-old daughter and the 12-year-old victim were friends on the same cheerleading squad. The

daughter, a diabetic, was required to test her blood sugar several times a day with a diabetes monitor.

On February 16, 2007, the victim slept over at Neeper's two-bedroom apartment in Barrington, New Hampshire,

where the daughter was living at the time. The daughter and the victim practiced their cheerleading routines in the daughter's

bedroom, and then went to sleep. Neeper and his nine-year-old son slept in the living room. The victim testified that she

woke up at around 2:00 a.m. because she felt Neeper's hand "rubbing and patting" her vagina. The victim woke the

daughter, and Neeper left the girls' room.

The daughter immediately confronted Neeper and accused him of sexually assaulting the victim. Neeper stated that

he did not know what she was talking about, got up, and left the room. The daughter then told Neeper that she and the victim

were leaving. In spite of the late hour, Neeper did not object or ask where they were going. The daughter and the victim left

the apartment and called Neeper's brother, Brett, who came to pick them up. Brett flagged down Officer Jared Welman, a Lee

police officer, and they all went to the Lee police station to be interviewed. Officer Welman called the Barrington Police

Department, and Barrington Officer Christopher Plummer came to Lee to assist.

At approximately 5:00 or 6:00 a.m., Officer Welman, Officer Plummer, and Brett went to Neeper's apartment to pick

up Neeper's son and take him to stay with Brett. Officer Plummer explained that the police were there to talk to him because

they found his daughter and the victim walking down Route 4. In response, Neeper explained that he had argued with his

daughter because the victim refused to call her mother and the girls refused to go to sleep, and that, afterwards, she and the

victim left. He also stated that, before they left, "[t]hey accused me of . . ." but then he stopped talking. Neeper then helped

1 The facts of the case are largely taken from State v . Neeper, 160 N.H. 11 (2010). Certain details have been filled in by consulting the motions of the two parties.

2 Officer Plummer gather some of the daughter=s and victim=s possessions, and did not object to his son staying with Brett.

The following day, February 18, Lieutenant Jacob Banaian of the Barrington Police Department took Neeper into

custody. At the police station, Lieutenant Banaian read the charges to Neeper and, although he did not read Neeper his

Miranda rights, showed Neeper a Arights form@ which contained the warnings. At that point, Neeper stated, AI don't

understand what is going on, so I would like an attorney.@ Lieutenant Banaian did not ask any further questions.

B. The State=s Direct Examination of Lieutenant Banaian

At trial, on direct examination, the prosecutor asked Lieutenant Banaian whether Neeper had attempted to contact

him or the Barrington police after his daughter and the victim had left in the middle of the night. Lieutenant Banaian stated

that Neeper had not. Neeper objected and the trial court overruled the objection. Lieutenant Banaian then testified about

Neeper=s arrest on February 18. At that point, the following exchange occurred between the prosecutor and Lieutenant

Banaian:

Q. Okay. And what did he say in response to you reading the charge involving [the victim]?

A. He said he did not understand.

Q. Okay.

A. And that . . .

Q. And at that point, youCthere were no further questions asked, correct?

A. Right. He said he did not understand, he would like to talk with an attorney, so there were no further

questions.

Neeper objected and moved for a mistrial. The court held a hearing outside of the presence of the jury. During

the hearing, Neeper introduced a copy of Lieutenant Banaian=s police report, which recounted Neeper=s arrest and subsequent

discussions with Lieutenant Banaian.

3 The court found that the testimony at issue was A Doyle-like@ but that the prosecutor did not engage in any

misconduct. See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976). The court also found that there was Aa little bit of a trail within the

records that lead up to [Lieutenant Banaian's comment].@ The court denied Neeper=s motion for a mistrial and issued a

curative instruction to the jury to Adisregard the . . . last two questions from the State and the lieutenant=s answers to them,@

and, in particular, the references to Neeper having exercised his constitutional rights. The court instructed the jury that it

could not Adraw an inference as to guilt or innocence@ based upon the fact that Neeper exercised his rights, and emphasized the

importance of compliance with the instruction. The court then asked the jurors to indicate Aby a show of hands@ whether

they could disregard Lieutenant Banaian=s answer. The court asked the jurors whether they could Aappreciate . . . the

principles of constitutional law,@ and they all responded that they could.

C. Neeper=s Testimony and the State=s Closing Argument

Neeper testified and offered an explanation of his conduct that night. He said his daughter kept her diabetes

monitor on the front of the bed because he routinely checked it at night. He also testified that she did not know that he

checked her monitor at night. Neeper stated that he and his daughter frequently argued about how she monitored her

diabetes, and that her blood sugar levels were high on the night the victim slept over. Neeper testified that he went into her

bedroom to check her monitor after she and the victim fell asleep. He further testified that he could not find the monitor and,

when someone started moving, he left to avoid a confrontation with his daughter. Neeper stated that his daughter yelled at

him and Aaccused [him] of a bunch of stuff.@ He testified that he did not stop her from leaving the apartment because a

therapist had recommended that he manage her outbursts by letting her Ago for a walk and cool down.@ His daughter,

however, testified that Neeper never checked her diabetes monitor, and that they had not discussed her blood sugar on the

night of the assault.

During the prosecutor=s closing argument, he discussed Neeper=s testimony regarding checking his daughter=s

diabetes monitor, and asserted that Neeper Anever told anyone@ his exculpatory story. At the conclusion of the closing

4 argument, Neeper renewed his request for a mistrial, contending that the prosecutor's argument encompassed his post-arrest

silence. The court implicitly denied Neeper's motion.

D. Neeper's Direct Appeal

Neeper appealed his conviction to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecutor improperly elicited

testimony that he invoked his constitutional rights post-arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings. Neeper further argued

that the prosecutor wrongly commented on that testimony when he asserted in his closing argument that Neeper "never told

anyone" his exculpatory story. The supreme court affirmed Neeper's conviction, holding that although some of the

prosecutor's questions leading up to Lieutenant Banaian's remark were "troublesome," the prosecutor's question at issue did

not seek to elicit testimony about Neeper's post-Miranda silence. Neeper, 160 N.H. at 16. The court further held that any

prejudice was alleviated by the trial court's curative instruction. Id. In addition, the court held that the prosecutor's remark

during his closing argument that Neeper "'never told anyone' refers to his statements immediately following the assault and not

his post-Miranda silence." Id. at 17. The court therefore concluded that Neeper's due process rights had not been violated

under New Hampshire's state constitution. 2

Neeper subsequently filed the habeas corpus petition that is the subject of the cross-motions for summary judgment.

I consider the parties' arguments below.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"In civil matters including habeas, evidentiary proceedings

2 Although the court analyzed Neeper=s claims under the state constitution, I analyze Neeper=s habeas corpus petition as if the court had decided his case under federal law. If the state court does not expressly apply a federal standard but rather resolves an issue under a state law standard that is more favorable to the defendant than the federal standard, the reviewing court Awill presume the federal law adjudication to be subsumed within the state law adjudication.@ Teti v. Bender, 507 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting McCambridge v. Hall, 303 F.3d 24, 35 (1st Cir. 2002)).

5 are appropriate only where the party bearing the burden of proof . . . starts with enough evidence to create a genuine issue of fact; otherwise summary judgment is proper.@ Bader v . Warden, N.H. State Prison, 488 F.3d 483, 488 (1st Cir. 2007). Neeper bears the burden of proof on his claims for habeas relief. Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AAEDPA@), a federal court cannot grant habeas relief with

respect to a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that (I)

Awas contrary to@ clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, (ii) involved an

Aunreasonable application of@ clearly established federal law, or (iii) was based on an Aunreasonable determination of the facts

in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(d).3

III. ANALYSIS

Neeper argues that the New Hampshire Supreme Court=s decision affirming his conviction was Acontrary to@ and Aan

unreasonable application of@ clearly established federal law. In support, he contends that the prosecutor=s examination of

Lieutenant Banaian and his reference during closing argument to Neeper having Anever told anyone@ about his exculpatory

story violated the law set forth in Doyle, that a prosecutor may not use a defendant=s post-Miranda silence against him at trial.

Neeper further argues that the court=s decision was based on an Aunreasonable determination of facts@ because it incorrectly

concluded that the prosecutor=s closing argument did not encompass Neeper=s post-Miranda silence.

3 This deferential standard of review applies to all claims that were Aadjudicated on the merits@ in state court. 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(d). AIf the federal claim was never addressed by the state court, federal review is de novo.@ Pike v . Guarino, 492 F.3d 6 1 , 67 (1st Cir. 2007). Here, the state court adjudicated Neeper=s claim on the merits, and therefore, I apply the deferential standard of review.

6 The United States Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids

impeachment of a defendant at trial for choosing to remain silent after Miranda warnings had been given. Doyle, 426 U.S. at

611-20. In Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (1986), the Supreme Court found that Doyle was premised on an implied

constitutional promise that a defendant's post-arrest silence would not result in his being penalized. See also Doyle, 426 U.S.

at 619 (Ait does not comport with due process to permit the prosecution during the trial to call attention to [the defendant=s]

silence@) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Although Doyle protects a defendant against the use of his post-Miranda silence against him, Amere reference to a

defendant=s post-Miranda silence does not necessarily amount to a due process violation.@ Ellen v. Brady, 475 F.3d 5, 11 (1st

Cir. 2007). A[I]n cases where a prosecutor refers to the defendant=s post-Miranda silence in a question to a witness or a

statement to the jury, or elicits testimony about such silence from a witness, and the offending question, statement or testimony

is promptly addressed by the court, in an instruction to disregard and/or strike from the record, there may not necessarily be a

Doyle violation because the government has not been permitted to >use= the defendant=s silence against him.@ Id. (discussing

Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 764-65 (1987)). Nor does the Constitution prohibit a prosecutor=s use of a defendant=s silence

prior to arrest. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 628 (1993).

These decisions comprise the backbone of established federal law governing the state=s use at trial of a defendant=s

post-Miranda silence. I now address whether the New Hampshire Supreme Court=s decision was contrary to or an

unreasonable application of that law, and whether the court made an unreasonable determination of fact.

A. AContrary to@ Federal Law

I must first determine whether the state court=s decision was contrary to relevant Supreme Court precedent. A state

court decision is Acontrary to@ established Supreme Court precedent if either the state court reaches a conclusion on a question

of law Adiametrically different@ to that reached by the Supreme Court, or a state court Aconfronts a set of facts that are materially

indistinguishable@ from relevant Supreme Court precedent and reaches an opposite result. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,

7 405-06 (2000).

Given the limited standard of review I must apply under ' 2254(d), I find that the state court=s decision was not

Acontrary to@ Supreme Court precedent. The New Hampshire Supreme Court specifically discussed the Doyle decision and

applied the rule announced therein. Neeper, 160 N.H. at 14 (AAccordingly, the State may not use the defendant=s silence in

response to [Miranda] warnings to impeach the defendant=s credibility, or . . . it its case-in-chief as substantive evidence of the

defendant=s guilt.@) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Neeper=s argument, that the state court held that the

prosecutor was allowed to use Neeper=s post-Miranda silence as argument, is unavailing. The court accurately stated the

governing law through its reliance on Doyle and its progeny. Therefore, viewing the record in the light most favorable to

Neeper, I do not find that the state court=s decision was Acontrary to@ established federal law.

B. AUnreasonable Application@ of Federal Law

If the state court=s decision was not contrary to Supreme Court precedent, I must then ascertain whether the state

court=s decision involved an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the

Supreme Court. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 407-11. A state court decision is an Aunreasonable application@ of clearly

established federal law if the state court (I) Aidentifies the correct governing legal rule from [the Supreme Court=s] cases but

unreasonably applies it to the facts@ of a prisoner=s case, (ii) Aunreasonably extends a legal principle from [the Supreme Court=s]

precedent to a new context where it should not apply@ or (iii) Aunreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context

where it should apply.@ Id. at 407; see L=Abbe v. DiPaolo, 311 F.3d 93, 96 (1st Cir. 2002). In order to meet this standard, the

state court=s application of law must contain Asome increment of incorrectness beyond error . . . . The increment need not

necessarily be great, but it must be great enough to make the decision unreasonable in the independent and objective judgment

of the federal court.@ McCambridge, 303 F.3d at 36 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

As discussed above, the state court identified the correct legal principle from Doyle and its progeny. I do not find

that the court unreasonably applied that principle to this case. As in Greer, the court here sustained an objection to testimony

8 that raised a Doyle issue, and gave a curative instruction to the jury explaining that it could not draw an adverse inference from

Neeper=s silence or give Lieutenant Banaian=s testimony on that issue any weight. See Greer, 483 U.S. at 767 n.8 (AWe

normally presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless

there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court=s instructions.@) (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). The court found that Lieutenant Banaian=s testimony was the only reference to Neeper=s

post-Miranda silence, and that the trial court explicitly did not permit the inquiry that Doyle forbids.4

The court properly applied the principles set forth in Doyle and related precedent. Therefore, viewing the record in

the light most favorable to Neeper, I do not find that the state court=s decision was an Aunreasonable application of@ established

federal law.

C. AUnreasonable Determination@ of Facts

If the state court=s decision was consistent with clearly established federal law, I then evaluate the reasonableness of

the state court=s factual findings. Neeper challenges the state court=s determination that the prosecutor=s comment during

closing argument that Neeper Anever told anyone@ about his exculpatory story referred to his statements immediately following

the assault, and not his post-Miranda silence.

Determinations of fact made by the state court, including witness credibility and recitals of external events, are

presumed to be correct; the petitioner has the burden of rebutting this presumption of correctness by clear and convincing

evidence. 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(e)(1); see also Sleeper v. Spencer, 510 F.3d 32, 38 (1st Cir. 2007). AThe question under AEDPA

is not whether a federal court believes the state court=s determination was incorrect but whether that determination was

4 Neeper challenges the state court=s analysis of both Lieutenant Banaian=s testimony and the prosecutor=s remarks during closing argument as Acontrary to@ and an Aunreasonable application of@ federal law. Because the state court held that the prosecutor=s closing argument did not refer to Neeper=s post-Miranda silence, however, Neeper=s contention regarding this point is better addressed under his Aunreasonable determination of@ facts argument.

9 unreasonable-a substantially higher threshold.@ Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007) (internal citation omitted).

The presumption of correctness is equally applicable when a state appellate court, as opposed to a state trial court, make the

findings of fact. Norton v. Spencer, 351 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2003) (quoting Sumner v. Mata, 455 U.S. 591, 593 (1982)).

An examination of the record shows that the state court=s factual determination is not unreasonable. The

prosecutor=s remarks preceding the comment at issue were focused almost entirely on the early morning following the assault,

February 17, and Neeper=s discussions with his daughter and Officer Plummer. Neeper was not placed under arrest or given

Miranda warnings until the following day.5 There is no basis on which to disturb the state court=s determination of fact.

Therefore, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Neeper, I do not find that the state court=s factual findings were

unreasonable.

Accordingly, as a matter of habeas review under the AEDPA standard, the Warden is entitled to summary judgment

with respect to Neeper=s claim in his petition.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, I grant the Warden=s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 6) and deny Neeper=s

motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 7).

SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

October , 2011

cc: Stephanie Hausman, Esq. 5 Under Brecht, the prosecutor=s comments regarding Neeper=s pre-arrest silence were not improper. See Brecht, 507 U.S. at 628.

10 Elizabeth Woodcock, Esq.