Valle v. Kelly

..
Ramon Valle,
United 	States 	District 	Court
District 	of Massachusetts
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil 	Action No.
22-30153-NMG
Sheila 	Kelly,
Respondent.
)
)
----------------------
MEMORANDUM 	& ORDER
GORTON, 	J.
This 	case 	arises 	from 	a 	petition 	of 	Ramon 	Valle 	( " Valle " 	or
" petitioner " ) 	for 	a 	writ 	of 	habeas 	corpus 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U. S . C .
§2254 . 	After 	consideration 	of 	his 	petition , 	Magistrate 	Judge
Katherine 	A. 	Robertson 	filed 	a 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	(" R&R " )
in 	response 	to 	which 	petitioner 	filed 	objections . 	Having
carefully 	reviewed 	the 	R&R 	and 	the 	objections 	thereto , 	and 	with
further 	consideration 	of 	the 	alleged 	prosecutorial 	misconduc t ,
the 	Court 	will 	accept 	and 	adopt 	the 	R&R .
I. 	Background
The 	underlying 	fac ts 	of 	this 	case 	are 	described 	in 	detail
in 	the 	order 	of 	the 	state 	t r ial 	court 	denying 	defendant ' s 	motion
for 	a 	new 	trial , 	the 	affirmance 	by 	the 	Massachusetts 	Appeals
Court 	(" MAC " ) 	and 	in 	the 	R&R . 	The 	Court 	will 	not 	repeat 	them .
- 	1 	-
Case 3:22-cv-30153-NMG Document 53 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 6

..
Relevant 	here 	are 	pet it ioner ' s 	convict i on s 	in 	2015 	on 	three
counts 	of 	home 	invasion , 	in 	violation 	of 	M. G. L . 	c . 265 , 	§18C , 	and
three 	counts 	of 	assau lt 	wit h 	a 	dangerous 	weap on , 	s pecifically 	a
firearm , 	in 	violation 	of 	M. G. L . 	c . 265 , 	§15B(b) , 	for 	which
petitioner 	was 	s entenced 	to 	20 	to 	22 	years 	i n 	state 	prison .
In 	2017 	Valle 	moved 	for 	a 	new 	trial 	based 	on 	al l eged 	Fifth
and 	Sixth 	Amendment 	violations . 	Th e 	trial 	court 	d enied 	that
motion . 	The 	MAC 	affirmed 	and 	the 	Massachusetts 	Supreme 	Judicial
Court 	(" SJC " ) 	denied 	petitioner ' s 	request 	for 	fu rthe r 	appellate
review .
In 	2022 	pet itioner 	filed 	the 	instant 	petition 	for 	habeas
corpus . 	Petitio ner ' s 	custodian , 	Shei l a 	Kel ly 	(" r espo nden t " ) ,
timely 	opposed . 	The 	matter 	was 	r eferred 	to 	Magistrate 	J udge
Robertson 	who 	issued 	her 	R&R 	i n 	J un e , 	2025 , 	reco mm ending 	that
thi s 	Court 	deny 	the 	habeas 	petition . 	In 	August , 	2025 ,
petitioner 	filed 	objectio n s 	to 	the 	R&R .
II. 	Legal 	Standard
Under 	the 	Antiterrorism 	and 	Ef fective 	Deat h 	Penalty 	Act
(" AEDPA " ) , 	a 	federal 	ha b eas 	court 	may 	not 	9rant 	a 	wr it 	of 	habeas
corpus 	unless 	the 	underlying 	state 	court 	adjud ic at ion 	resulted
in 	a 	decision 	that 	is 	co n trary 	t o , 	or 	involved 	an 	unreasonable
application 	of , 	clearly 	established 	federal 	law . 	28 	O. S . C .
§2254 (d) (1) .
- 	2 	-
Case 3:22-cv-30153-NMG Document 53 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 6

..
If 	a 	federal 	claim was 	not 	addressed 	by 	the 	state 	courts
because 	the 	issue 	was 	dec ided 	solely 	on 	state 	law 	grounds , 	the
decision 	is 	not 	entitled 	to 	the 	deferen tial 	review 	defined 	in
AEDPA ; 	ins te ad , 	the 	clai m i s 	reviewed 	de 	novo . 	Fortini 	v .
Murphy , 	257 	F . 3d 	39 , 	47 	(1st 	Cir . 	2001) . 	If 	the 	state 	standard
is 	more 	favorable 	to 	the 	defendant 	than 	the 	federal 	law ,
however , 	the 	federal 	analysis 	is 	presumed 	to 	be 	subsumed 	with i n
the 	state 	law 	adjudication 	and 	the 	decision 	remains 	ent itled 	to
deference . 	Id . 	at 	125 .
III . 	Alleged 	Prosecutorial 	Misconduct
Petitioner 	claims 	that 	dur i ng 	his 	ju ry 	tri a l 	the 	prosecutor
knowingly 	u sed 	fal se 	testimony 	from 	a 	Springfield 	police
officer . 	Specifically , 	the 	testifying 	officer 	stated 	that
Office r 	Brantley , 	an 	investig ating 	officer 	on 	the 	scene , 	radioed
that 	'' multiple 	females " 	identified 	petitioner 	as 	the 	shooter .
Because 	pe t itioner 	was 	never 	charged 	with 	being 	the 	sho oter 	nor
otherwise 	identified 	as 	the 	shooter 	by 	witnesses , 	he 	contends
that 	this 	was 	fal se 	te st imony . 	The 	MAC 	held 	t ha t , 	while 	the
prosecutor 	should 	have 	co rrected 	th at 	potentially 	mislead i ng
testimony , 	ultimately
i t 	did 	not 	create 	a 	substantial 	risk 	of 	a 	miscarriage 	of
j us tice 	because 	Officer 	Brantley 	and 	the 	three 	victims 	all
testified 	at 	th e 	trial , 	and 	none 	o f 	them 	identified
Petitioner 	as 	the 	shooter ; 	moreover , 	the 	prosecutor 	told
t he 	jury 	that 	Petitioner 	was 	not 	charged 	with 	firing 	a 	gun .
- 	3 	-
Case 3:22-cv-30153-NMG Document 53 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 6

..
a. Legal 	Standard 	for 	Prosecutorial 	Misconduct
1 . State
Under 	Massachusetts 	state 	l aw , 	unpreserved 	errors 	in 	non-
murder 	cases 	are 	reviewe d 	for 	substantial 	risk 	of 	a 	miscarriage
of 	justice 	( " the 	Freeman 	standard " ) . 	Commonweal th 	v . 	Freeman ,
227 	N. E . 2d 	3 , 	9 	(Mass . 	1967) . 	The 	Freeman 	standard 	is 	nearly
i dentical 	to 	the 	one 	used 	in 	capital 	cases 	reviewed 	by 	the 	SJC
under 	Mass . 	Gen . 	Laws 	ch . 	278 , 	§33E 	(" the 	33E 	standard " ) . 	The
SJC 	itself 	has 	recognized 	that
[i]n 	many 	opinions 	we 	have 	described 	the 	tests 	under 	th e
Freeman 	standard 	and 	the 	§33E 	standard 	in 	words 	wh i ch
suggest 	that 	the 	tests 	may 	be 	identical .
Commonwealth 	v . 	Lennon , 	399 	Mass . 	443 , 	448 	n . 6 	(1987) .
The 	SJC 	clarified , 	however , 	that 	the 	33E 	standard 	places 	a
greater 	burden 	on 	the 	court 	than 	the 	Freeman 	standard 	because
there 	is 	a 	duty 	to 	review 	the 	whole 	record 	under 	33E 	but 	not
under 	the 	Freema n 	standard . 	Consequently , 	the 	33E 	standard 	is
more 	defendant - friendly 	than 	the 	Freeman 	standard .
2. Federal
Under 	clear l y 	established 	federa l 	l aw , 	the 	know i ng 	use 	of
false 	testimony 	constitutes 	a 	due 	process 	violation 	when 	there
is 	" any 	reaso nabl e 	likelihood 	that 	the 	false 	testimony 	could
have 	affected 	the 	judgment 	of 	the 	jury . " 	Kyles 	v . 	Whitley , 	514
U. S . 	419 , 	433 	n . 7 	(1995) ; 	Napue 	v . 	Illi nois , 	360 	U. S . 	264 , 	271
( 1959) .
- 	4 	-
Case 3:22-cv-30153-NMG Document 53 Filed 11/19/25 Page 4 of 6

b. Analysis
The 	Magistrate 	J udge 	de te rm i ned 	t ha t 	the 	MAC 	applied 	the
33E 	standard 	and , 	relying 	on 	case 	law 	that 	found 	it 	subsumed 	the
fe deral 	standard , 	afforded 	deference 	to 	the 	MAC ' s 	decision . 	The
MAC 	did 	no t , 	however , 	apply 	the 	33E 	standard , 	which 	would 	have
been 	a 	mistake 	but , 	instead , 	correctly 	applied 	the 	Freeman
s tan dard . 	Having 	misidentified 	the 	standard 	applied 	by 	the 	MAC ,
the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	did 	not 	undertake 	the 	requisite 	analys is 	to
determine 	whether 	the 	Freeman 	standard , 	rather 	than 	the 	33E
standard , 	subsumes 	the 	federal 	standa rd .
Thi s 	Court 	has 	not 	discovered 	any 	Massachusetts 	state 	court
decision 	explicitly 	holding 	that 	the 	Freeman 	standard 	is 	more
favo rable 	to 	de fe ndants 	than 	the 	federal 	standard . 	Because 	the
fe deral 	law 	analysis 	is 	not 	subsumed 	within 	the 	state 	law
adjudication , 	this 	Court 	will 	conduct 	a 	de 	nova 	review , 	using
the 	federal 	standard . 	Norton 	v . 	Spencer , 	351 	F . 3d 	1 , 	5 	(1 st 	Cir .
2003) .
As 	desc ri b ed 	earlier , 	under 	clearly 	established 	federal
l aw , 	the 	knowing 	use 	of 	false 	testimony 	con s titutes 	a 	due
process 	violation 	when 	there 	is 	" any 	reasonable 	likelihood 	that
the 	false 	testimony 	could 	have 	affected 	the 	judgment 	of 	the
jury . " 	Napue , 	360 	U. S . 	at 	271 . 	Even 	assuming , 	however , 	that 	the
te stimony 	was 	false 	and 	that 	its 	use 	was 	knowing , 	the 	Court
finds 	that 	there 	is 	no 	reasonable 	likelihood 	that 	the 	testimony
- 	5 	-
Case 3:22-cv-30153-NMG Document 53 Filed 11/19/25 Page 5 of 6

'Ill ..... • 	., ..
could 	have 	affected 	the 	jury 	given 	that 	petitioner 	was 	not
charged 	with 	be ing 	the 	shoo ter 	and 	none 	of 	the 	test if ying
witnesses 	identified 	him 	as 	the 	shooter . 	Indeed , 	the
government ' s 	theory 	of 	the 	case 	rested 	on 	the 	premise 	tha t
petitioner 	was 	not 	the 	shooter 	and 	was 	startled 	by 	the 	shoot ing ,
leadin g 	hi m to 	break 	into 	the 	victim ' s 	apartment . 	Accordingly ,
the 	Court 	reaches 	the 	same 	result 	as 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge : 	there
was 	no 	meaningful 	prosecutorial 	miscondu ct 	and 	petit ioner ' s
objection 	to 	the 	R&R 	is 	overruled .
ORDER
After 	consideration 	of 	petitioner ' s 	objections 	(Docket 	No .
52) 	thereto 	and , 	with 	clarification 	of 	the 	ruli ng 	with 	respect
to 	the 	prosecutorial 	mi sconduct 	claim , 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation 	is 	accepted 	and 	adopted .
So 	ordered.
Na thanie.lM. 	dbfton
S enio r 	United 	Sta tes 	District 	Judge
Dated : 	November /f , 	2025
- 	6 	-
Case 3:22-cv-30153-NMG Document 53 Filed 11/19/25 Page 6 of 6