Ronald Vernon Schneider v. Robert A. Erickson, Warden

Eighth Circuit

Ronald Vernon Schneider v. Robert A. Erickson, Warden

7 F.3d 760, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 26735, 1993 WL 409819

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 1993

Docket92-3174

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 F.3d 760 (Ronald Vernon Schneider v. Robert A. Erickson, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ronald Vernon Schneider v. Robert A. Erickson, Warden, 7 F.3d 760, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 26735, 1993 WL 409819 (8th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Ronald Schneider appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 We affirm.

A jury found Schneider guilty of first degree murder, burglary, and kidnapping. During his separate sanity trial, the jury determined Schneider was legally responsible for his actions, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment plus two consecutive thirty-six month sentences. Schneider appealed his conviction, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.

Schneider claims that he was deprived a fair trial because, during his sanity trial, the prosecution commented on and submitted evidence regarding the fact that Schneider had originally retained the two psychiatrists who were called as witnesses for the prosecution. Specifically, Schneider argues that because he was compelled to produce the psychiatrists’ names, Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 20.03 subd. 1 and 2; State v. Dodis, 314 N.W.2d 233, 240 (Minn.1982), evidence relating to the fact that Schneider originally hired these witnesses violated his due process rights. Schneider compares his case to Brecht v. Abrahamson, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (discussing the prosecution commenting on a defendant’s post-Miranda silence); however, Brecht is inapposite here. The rule forbidding the prosecution from commenting on the accused’s silence rests on the fundamental unfairness and deprivation of due process in assuring a suspect that his silence will not be used against him and then using his silence to impeach him. Doyle v. *762 Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 2246, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976).

The admissibility of evidence is “usually a matter of state law which does not involve federal constitutional issues and thus is not within the scope of habeas corpus relief.” Nelson v. Hutto, 597 F.2d 137, 138 (8th Cir.1979). Whether the trial court committed an evidentiary error is a question of state law, and the state courts have already reviewed this case for such an error. State v. Schneider, 402 N.W.2d 779, 788 (Minn.1987). Although a sufficiently egregious evidentiary error may rise to the level of a constitutional violation, Atwell v. State of Arkansas, 426 F.2d 912, 915 (8th Cir.1970), Schneider has failed to demonstrate any fundamental unfairness or deprivation of due process. Because Schneider has failed to demonstrate a basis upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted, we affirm the district court.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, presiding.

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

FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Ronald Schneider appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 We affirm.

A jury found Schneider guilty of first degree murder, burglary, and kidnapping. During his separate sanity trial, the jury determined Schneider was legally responsible for his actions, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment plus two consecutive thirty-six month sentences. Schneider appealed his conviction, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.

Schneider claims that he was deprived a fair trial because, during his sanity trial, the prosecution commented on and submitted evidence regarding the fact that Schneider had originally retained the two psychiatrists who were called as witnesses for the prosecution. Specifically, Schneider argues that because he was compelled to produce the psychiatrists’ names, Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 20.03 subd. 1 and 2; State v. Dodis, 314 N.W.2d 233, 240 (Minn.1982), evidence relating to the fact that Schneider originally hired these witnesses violated his due process rights. Schneider compares his case to Brecht v. Abrahamson, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (discussing the prosecution commenting on a defendant’s post-Miranda silence); however, Brecht is inapposite here. The rule forbidding the prosecution from commenting on the accused’s silence rests on the fundamental unfairness and deprivation of due process in assuring a suspect that his silence will not be used against him and then using his silence to impeach him. Doyle v. *762 Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 2246, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976).

The admissibility of evidence is “usually a matter of state law which does not involve federal constitutional issues and thus is not within the scope of habeas corpus relief.” Nelson v. Hutto, 597 F.2d 137, 138 (8th Cir.1979). Whether the trial court committed an evidentiary error is a question of state law, and the state courts have already reviewed this case for such an error. State v. Schneider, 402 N.W.2d 779, 788 (Minn.1987). Although a sufficiently egregious evidentiary error may rise to the level of a constitutional violation, Atwell v. State of Arkansas, 426 F.2d 912, 915 (8th Cir.1970), Schneider has failed to demonstrate any fundamental unfairness or deprivation of due process. Because Schneider has failed to demonstrate a basis upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted, we affirm the district court.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 F.3d 760, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 26735, 1993 WL 409819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-vernon-schneider-v-robert-a-erickson-warden-ca8-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack