Shiner v. Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center

Dominic 	Shiner,
United 	States 	District Court
District of Massachusetts
Petitioner,
V. 	Civil Action No.
24-10100-NMG
Souza-Baranowski 	Correctional
Center,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM 	& ORDER
GORTON, 	J.
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	the 	petition 	for 	writ 	of 	habeas 	corpus
(Docket 	No . 	1) 	of 	petitioner 	Dominic 	Shiner 	("petitioner " 	or
" Shiner " ) . 	Shiner 	seeks 	relief 	from 	his 	state 	court 	conviction
for 	manslaughter 	on 	the 	basis 	that 	the 	trial 	court 	improperly
admitted 	evidence 	that 	deni ed 	him 	a 	meaningful 	o pp o rt unity 	to
present 	a 	defense . 	Because 	Shiner 	has 	failed 	to 	exhaust 	his
claims 	entirely , 	his 	petition 	will 	be 	denied .
I . 	Background
A. Facts
In 	September , 	2015 , 	Shiner 	was 	indicted 	for 	murd er 	in 	the
f irst 	degree 	in 	connection 	with 	the 	fatal 	stabbing 	of 	Sean 	Dwyer
one 	year 	earlie r . 	Shiner 	was 	convicted 	by 	a 	jury 	of 	voluntary
manslaughter 	and 	witnes s 	intimi dat ion 	and 	was 	sentenced 	to 	16 	to
19 	years 	of 	i n c arc eratio n .
- 1-
Case 1:24-cv-10100-NMG Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 6

At 	trial , 	the 	Commonwealth 	of 	Massachusetts 	(" the
Commonwealth " ) 	presented 	no 	eyewitness 	or 	forensic 	evidence
linking 	Shiner 	to 	the 	stabbing . 	It 	did 	introduce 	surveillan ce
footage 	from 	a 	nearby 	home 	security 	system 	which 	appeared 	to
show 	a 	person 	in 	a 	light - colored 	sweatshirt 	running 	away 	from
the 	scene 	shortly 	after 	the 	crime . 	Eyewitness 	testimony 	had
reporte d 	that 	p etitioner 	was 	wearing 	a 	black 	sweatshir t 	two
hours 	after 	Dwyer 	was 	killed .
To 	address 	that 	discrepancy , 	a 	police 	detective 	testified
that 	h e 	r etur ned 	to 	the 	residence 	from 	which 	the 	surve ill an ce
footage 	was 	collected 	six 	months 	after 	the 	incident 	and
performed 	a 	test 	in 	which 	a 	fellow 	officer 	walked 	by 	the 	camera
wearin g 	a 	black 	shirt . 	The 	detective 	determined 	that , 	in 	the
resulting 	foota g e , 	the 	sh irt 	appeared 	to 	be 	light - colored . 	He
took 	a 	photo 	of 	the 	surveillance 	scr een 	but 	did 	not 	preserve 	the
footage .
That 	photo , 	as 	well 	as 	t he 	detecti ve ' s 	explanation 	of 	the
test , 	was 	presented 	to 	the 	jury . 	The 	detective 	offered 	no
opinion 	as 	to 	the 	color 	of 	Shiner ' s 	sweatshirt 	that 	night 	and
instead 	explained 	only 	his 	own 	observation 	of 	t he 	test .
Petitioner 	o bjected 	that 	the 	admission 	of 	such 	testimony
required 	an 	expert 	witness 	to 	testify 	that 	conditions 	between
the 	test 	and 	actual 	footage 	were 	similar 	enough 	to 	render 	the
- 2 -
Case 1:24-cv-10100-NMG Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 6

testimony 	admissible , 	and 	that 	the 	officer 	conceded 	that 	he 	had
no 	expertise 	in 	videogr aphy .
The 	judge 	allowed 	the 	testimony 	to 	be 	presented 	to 	the 	jury
but 	issued 	a 	d etailed 	limitin g 	instruction . 	He 	cautioned 	the
jury 	that 	the 	demonstration 	was 	not 	to 	be 	taken 	as 	actual
evidence 	but 	rather 	as 	a 	showing 	that , 	just 	becaus e 	a 	vi de o
depicts 	something 	as 	light-colored 	does 	not 	mean 	that 	i t 	was .
Outside 	the 	presence 	of 	the 	jury , 	the 	judge 	made 	a 	statement 	for
the 	record 	that 	the 	conditions 	appeared 	similar 	enough 	to
warrant 	admission 	of 	the 	demonstration .
B. Procedural 	History
Petitioner 	appealed 	his 	conviction 	to 	the 	Massachusetts
Appeals 	Court 	(" the 	MAC " ) . 	With 	respect 	to 	the 	question 	of 	t h e
video 	demonstration , 	petitioner 	appealed 	its 	admission 	so l e ly 	on
evidentiary 	grounds , 	claiming 	that 	the 	testimony 	amounted 	to
imprope r 	opinion 	testimony 	by 	a 	lay 	witness 	in 	violation 	of
Mass . G. Evid . 	§701 .
The 	MAC 	affirmed 	the 	ruling 	but 	one 	judge 	dissented ,
finding 	that 	the 	majority 	had 	failed 	to 	apply 	the 	test 	for
admissibility 	of 	experiment 	evidence 	as 	described 	in
Commonwealth 	v . 	Rintala , 	488 	Mass . 	421 	(2021) , 	and 	Daubert 	v .
Merrell 	Dow 	Pharms ., 	Inc ., 	509 	U. S . 	579 	(1993) . 	The 	dissent
contended 	that 	evidence 	of 	the 	experiment 	was 	inadmissible 	under
Rintala 	and 	Daubert , 	and 	that 	its 	admission 	undermined 	the
- 3-
Case 1:24-cv-10100-NMG Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 6

exculpatory 	value 	of 	the 	surveillance 	footage 	and 	denied
petitioner 	a 	fair 	trial.
Petitioner 	filed 	an 	application 	for 	further 	appellate
review 	(" FAR " ) 	to 	the 	Supreme 	Judicial 	Court 	(" the 	SJC " ) 	bu t
that 	application 	was 	denied . 	In 	his 	pending 	petition 	for 	writ
of 	habeas 	corpus , 	Shiner ' s 	sole 	claim 	is 	that 	the 	admission 	of
the 	ev id ence 	den ie d 	h im 	his 	constitutional 	right 	to 	present 	a
defense 	under 	Holmes 	v . 	South 	Carolina , 	54 7 	U. S . 	319 	(2006) .
II. 	Petition 	for 	Writ 	of 	Habeas 	Corpus
A. Legal 	Standard
For 	a 	writ 	of 	habeas 	corpus 	to 	be 	successful , 	a 	petitioner
must 	show 	that 	the 	state 	court 	acted 	contrary 	to , 	or 	committed
an 	unreasonable 	application 	of , 	clearly 	established 	precedent 	of
the 	Supreme 	Court 	of 	the 	United 	States . 	28 	U. S . C . 	§2254 (d ) .
Relief 	may 	not 	be 	gr anted 	unless 	t he 	petiti one r 	has 	exhausted
a ll 	remedies 	availabl e 	in 	state 	court . 	§2254 (b) ( 1) (A) .
B. Application
Before 	the 	Court 	may 	consider 	the 	merits 	of 	Shiner ' s
petition , 	it 	must 	first 	determine 	whether 	his 	claims 	were 	fu lly
exhausted . 	Exhaustion 	requires 	a 	petitioner 	to 	present 	fairly
the 	factual 	and 	legal 	basis 	of 	his 	claims 	to 	t h e 	state 	court .
Coningford 	v . 	Rhode 	Island , 	640 	F . 3d 	478 , 	482 	(1st 	Cir . 	2011) .
Presentment 	may 	be 	satisfied 	in 	a 	numb er 	of 	ways 	but 	generally
requires 	conspicuous 	presentation 	of 	a 	federal 	constitu tional
- 4-
Case 1:24-cv-10100-NMG Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 6

claim , 	identification 	of 	a 	s p ecific 	cons t itutional 	right ,
reliance 	on 	constitutional 	precedent 	or 	asse r tion 	of 	a 	state - law
claim 	that 	is 	functionally 	identical 	to 	a 	federal 	constitutiona l
claim . 	Id . 	The 	Court 	s h ould 	determine 	whether 	the 	presentation
would 	be 	likely 	to 	alert 	a 	reasonable 	jurist 	to 	the 	existence 	of
a 	federal 	question . 	Nadworny 	v . 	Fair , 	872 	F . 2d 	1093 , 	1101 	( 1s t
Cir . 	1989) .
In 	his 	appeal 	to 	the 	MAC , 	Sh iner 	inc l uded 	no 	reference ,
ex plicit 	or 	otherwise , 	to 	a 	denial 	of 	his 	constitutional 	right
under 	Holmes . 	Rather , 	his 	appeal 	was 	based 	solely 	upon 	whether
the 	admission 	of 	the 	detective ' s 	testimony 	violated 	state
evidentiary 	rules . 	Alt h oug h 	the 	dissenti n g 	judge 	concluded 	that
admission 	of 	the 	test 	negated 	the 	exculpatory 	value 	of 	the
footage 	and 	therefore 	denied 	pe titioner 	the 	right 	to 	a 	fair
tri a l , 	there 	is 	no 	indication 	that 	the 	MAC 	was 	alerted 	to 	the
specific 	constitutional 	challenge 	under 	Holmes . 	The 	Court
concludes 	that 	the 	legal 	basis 	for 	petitioner ' s 	claim 	was 	not
therefo re 	fairly 	presented 	to 	the 	MAC .
The 	Court 	need 	not 	determine 	wh ether 	the 	claim 	was 	fairly
presented 	to 	the 	SJC 	because 	that 	court 	regularly 	declines 	to
review 	claims 	not 	included 	in 	an 	original 	appea l . 	See 	Grieco 	v .
Hall , 	487 	F . 	Supp . 	1193 , 	1199 	(D . 	Mass . 	1980) . 	The 	Holmes 	claim
was 	n ot 	raised 	at 	the 	MAC , 	not 	fairly 	presented 	to 	the 	SJC 	and
therefore 	not 	exhausted . 	That 	failure 	to 	exhaust 	is 	fatal 	to
- 5 -
Case 1:24-cv-10100-NMG Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 5 of 6

Shiner ' s 	pending 	petition . 	Martens 	v . 	Sha n no n, 	836 	F . 2d 	715 , 	717
(1st 	Cir . 	1988) .
ORDER
For 	the 	forgoing 	reasons , 	the 	petition 	for 	writ 	of 	habeas
co rpus 	(Docket 	No . 	1) 	is 	DENIED.
So 	ordered.
Senior 	United 	States 	District 	Judge
Dated : 	November :Z( , 	2025
- 6-
Case 1:24-cv-10100-NMG Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 6 of 6