Bin Wang v. Superintendent Forest SCI ( 2023 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 21-1674
________________
BIN WANG,
Appellant
v.
SUPERINTENDENT FOREST SCI;
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE
________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-19-cv-00357)
District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
________________
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
On March 29, 2022
Before: RESTREPO, ROTH and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 30, 2023)
________________
OPINION*
________________
ROTH, Circuit Judge
Bin Wang appeals the order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We granted a
certificate of appealability on his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance in failing to conduct a reasonable forensic investigation to counter the
prosecution’s homicide narrative. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
I.
In May 2007, Bin Wang shot and killed his wife, Xiangzhen Lin, in their
Philadelphia home. Wang told police that Lin died by suicide when she shot herself in
the back of the head. To support his suicide narrative, Wang’s trial counsel hired Dr.
Paul Hoyer, a forensic pathologist, as an expert witness. After reviewing Lin’s autopsy
report, the photographs, the discovery, and digital images of the gun, Dr. Hoyer prepared
an expert report. Wang’s trial counsel lamented to Wang that Dr. Hoyer’s “findings are
not as strong as I had hoped. In fact, the conclusion will make the suicide argument a
very difficult one for a jury to understand.” 1 Trial counsel later wrote to Wang and said
that Dr. Hoyer “is not saying that [Lin’s] death was absolutely, positively a suicide,” and
that it would be Wang’s own testimony “that will persuade the jury that this was a
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
Appx. 831.
2
suicide.”2 Both Dr. Hoyer and Wang testified at trial, a jury convicted Wang of First-
Degree Murder and Possession of an Instrument of Crime, and the trial court sentenced
him to life imprisonment.
Wang then began Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) proceedings.
He contended that “trial counsel was ineffective for not expanding the scope of his
forensic investigation by consulting with and retaining a crime scene expert or
reconstructionist to conduct a holistic examination of all the physical evidence at the
scene.”3 The PCRA court determined that trial counsel’s strategy “had a reasonable basis
designed to effectuate [Wang’s] interests, namely that . . . Lin’s death was a suicide.” 4
Accordingly, the PCRA court denied Wang relief on his ineffective-assistance claim.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the PCRA court, and Wang did not seek
review in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Wang next petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Wang
again claimed that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because he failed to
execute a reasonable forensic investigation to counter the Commonwealth’s homicide
narrative. A magistrate judge reviewed Wang’s petition and issued a Report &
Recommendation, recommending that the petition be denied. Wang lodged twenty-two
objections. The District Court overruled all but one of Wang’s objections, adopted the
Report & Recommendation with some supplements, and dismissed Wang’s petition.
2
Appx. 833.
3
Appx. 639.
4
Appx. 640.
3
II.
The District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and
2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We exercise plenary
review because the District Court did not hold an evidentiary hearing. 5
Although our review of the District Court’s decision is plenary, the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) requires us to defer considerably to
the state court’s determination. 6 Under AEDPA, a petitioner is entitled to habeas relief
only if the state court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application
of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States.”7 A decision is “contrary to” Supreme Court precedent “if the state court applies
a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in the [Supreme Court’s] cases.”8 A
state court’s application of clearly established law is “unreasonable” if the court identifies
the correct governing rule but applies it to the facts of the case in a manner that is not
merely erroneous, but “objectively unreasonable.” 9 Put another way, “a state prisoner
must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was
so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in
existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” 10
5
See Dennis v. Sec’y, Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 834 F.3d 263, 280 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc).
6
Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386, 391–92 (3d Cir. 2010).
7
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
8
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 (2000).
9
Id. at 409–10; Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 5 (2003).
10
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011).
4
Further, our review of the state court’s “scrutiny of counsel’s performance must”
itself “be highly deferential.” 11 Courts “should recognize that counsel is strongly
presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the
exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” 12 In light of the deference given to trial
counsel’s decisions under Strickland v. Washington,13 and our deference to the state
court’s determinations, our review is “doubly deferential.”14
Under Strickland, a petitioner alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must first
show that counsel’s performance was deficient. 15 “This requires showing that counsel
made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the
defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” 16
Second, a petitioner must show that the deficient performance caused prejudice.17
“This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant
of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” 18 To establish prejudice, a petitioner “must
show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors,
the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 19
III.
11
Strickland v.Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984).
12
Id. at 690.
13
Id. at 691.
14
Yarborough, 540 U.S. at 6.
15
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.
16
Id.17
Id.18
Id.19
Id. at 694.
5
Wang claims that “[t]rial counsel . . . should’ve expanded his forensic
investigation after receiving Dr. Hoyer’s equally plausible opinion because Dr. Hoyer’s
opinion didn’t move the reasonable doubt needle in [Wang’s] favor.” 20 His failure to do
so, Wang says, violated Strickland and constituted ineffective assistance.
The Pennsylvania courts did not unreasonably apply federal law when they
rejected Wang’s argument. Wang’s trial counsel hired an experienced forensic
pathologist, and that expert reviewed the evidence, wrote a report, and testified on
Wang’s behalf at trial. That the report was not as helpful to Wang’s defense as Wang
may have wished does not mean that counsel’s assistance was constitutionally
ineffective. Under Strickland, counsel’s “duty to investigate does ‘not force defense
lawyers to scour the globe,’ and limited investigation is reasonable where counsel has
good reason to think further investigation would be wasteful.” 21
Even if his trial counsel erred in not seeking out a second forensic expert, there is
a reasonable argument that Wang’s trial counsel satisfied Strickland.22 That is all the law
permits us to consider.
IV.
20
Appellant’s Br. at 42. In other words, Dr. Hoyer’s expert opinion did not conclusively
say Lin took her own life.
21
Siehl v. Grace, 561 F.3d 189, 197 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S.
374, 383 (2005)).
22
See Harrington, 562 U.S. at 105.
6
The decision by Wang’s trial counsel not to hire a second expert, viewed through
the doubly deferential lenses of Strickland and AEDPA, was reasonable. We will affirm
the District Court’s order, denying Wang’s petition for habeas relief.
7