Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jaime Traverso, Petitioner v. Maryland

No,

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JAIME TRAVERSO

PETITIONER

-

(Your Name)

VS.

STATE OF MARYLAND

RESPONDENT(S)

-

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JAIME TRAVERSO, #200453/1155479

(Your Name)

ECI-30420 Revells Neck Road

(Address)

Westover, Maryland 21890

(City, State, Zip Code)

(410) 845-4000

(Phone Number)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

DID THE MARYLAND COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION ]BY REFUSING

TO REOPEN THE LAW OF THE CASE ESTABLISHED BY THE TESTIMONY OF

A CONVICTED PERJURER, WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE AND TO REVIEW

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FULL FAITH & CREDIT CLAUSE?

LIST OF PARTIES

[ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

Ec] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

Attorney General of Maryland

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

Traverso v. Commonwealth, 366 S.E.2d 719 (1988) ..............4

Traverso v. State, 83 Md.App. 389, cert. denied 320 Md.801 (1990) 5, 9

Coffin, III v. Murray, 983 F.2d 563 (4th Cir. 1992) ...........6, 9

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) ........................6, 10

United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997) ..................9

Baltimore City v. FOP, 449 Md. 713 (2015) ....................9

Garnerv. Archers Glen Partners, Inc, 405 Md. 43 (2008) .......9

10

Sejman v. Warner-Lambert Co, 845 F.2d 66 (4th Cir. 1988)

Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) .......................10

Pavlock v. Golden Inst. Acqui., LLC, 2017 US dist.LEXIS 11630(2017)10

Durfee sr. Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (1963) ............................11

Riley v. New York Trust Co, 315 U.S. 243 ......................11

STATUTES AND RULES

Title 28, Secxtion 1738, US Code ......... . ........... . 7,11,12

OTHER

4 Corpus Juris §3088, p. 1106 .......................10

2A Fed. Proc. L.Ed. §3:793, p. 542 ..................10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

.

1

.

JURISDICTION................................................................................................................... 2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................................. 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................................ 4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ........................................................................... 9

.

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 12

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

APPENDIX B

Circuit Court for Prince George's County, MD.

APPENDIX C Court of Appeals of Maryland

APPENDIX

Petition for Rehearing filed by AG of Virginia

APPENDIX

Affidabvit & Transcripts of 8/8/89 at M50, 51.

APPENDIX F

Court of Appeals of Virginia final decision

APPENDIX G Transcripts of 6/16/89 at 4-101,102,103,104

APPENDIX H Dexter Drake Coffin, III psych history

APPENDIX I Virginia Parole Board on Coffin's parole release

APPENDIX J Brief of AG of Maryland at slips 14, 17

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

to

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

; or,

[ ] reported at

[1 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

; or,

[ I reported at

[ I has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[I is unpublished.

11 For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

to the petition and is

Appendix C

; or,

II] reported at

[1 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[XJ is unpublished.

The opinion of the Court of Special Appeals of Marylan urt

to the petition and is

appears at Appendix A

; or,

[ ] reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

{XJ

is unpublished.

1.

to

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[1 A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date:

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

,

and a copy of the

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including

in Application No. _A______

(date) on ____________________ (date)

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[ 3 For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix C

8/31/18

[1 A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[1 An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including

Application No. _A

(date) on

(date) in

.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

2.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Article IV, Section 1, Full Faith & Credit Clause

Doctrine of Stare Decisis

Law of the Case Doctrine

Constitutional Due Process Clause

3.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner was first tried and convicted of first degree

murder in the Circuit Court for Loudoun County, Virginia in

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jaime Traverso, No. C-4871. Under

appeal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia in Traverso

v.

Commonwealth, Record No. 0953-86-4 (366 S.E.2d 719 (1988)),

reversed and the Mandate ordered dismissal of the indictment.

Thereafter,, the Attorney General of Virginia filed a Petition

for Rehearing on April 19, 1988 (App. D). While the appeal was

pending, William Burch, Commonwealth Attorney for Loudoun

County, Virginia began searching for a new way to have

Petitioner prosecuted in any jurisdiction. He contacted

prosecutors in Frederick County, Maryland whom decided that

there was no evidence to indicate the murder occurred in their

county and declined to take and prosecute. Mr. Burch then

turned to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Alexandria, Virginia,

but federal prosecutors also declined to prosecute. He then

turned to prosecutors in Prince George's County, Maryland, as

a last resort by contacting Mr. Bonsib, Assistant State's

Attorney for Prince George's County, Maryland and after a

meeting, Mr. Burch agreed to provide Prince George's County,

Maryland prosecutors with copies of all his records (App. E).

Detective Hatfield of the Prince George's County Police,

Maryland and Investigator Sheldon of the Loudoun County

Sheriff, Virginia, went out and found a dirt road beside

Boiling Air Force Base in Washington, DC as described to them

by the jailhouse witness, Dexter Drake Coffin, III, during an

interview, alleging that this was the situs of the crime. It

was then determined by Maryland prosecutors to present such

evidence and testimony before the Grand Jury sitting in Prince

George's County, Maryland to gain an indictment..

The Court of Appeals of Virginia on 19 July 1989, issued

a new decision upon rehearing ordering the Mandate issued on

April 5, 1988 be amended. Accordingly, said Mandate is

4.

vacated, reversing the case for a new trial (App. F).

Unfortunately, there was no new trial in Virginia because the

Commonwealth Attorney for L.oudoun County, Virginia had

successfully extradited Petitioner to Maryland to face the

same charge.

At the second trial in the Circuit Court for Prince

George's County, Maryland, in State of Maryland v. Jaime

Traverso, Case No. CT-88-1623X, the prosecution presented the

testimony of two jailhouse witnesses, Mr. Dexter Drake Coffin,

III and Thomas Kirk Doyle to testify against Petitioner. Mr.

Coffin's testimony helped the prosecution secure a conviction

and his testimony provided jurisdiction of the trial court as

well as the ocurrence of the murder in Maryland.

Prior to concluding the trial, the trial judge reflected

some doubt as to Petitioner's guilt. As both the trial judge

and the prosecutor noted during closing arguments, "this is a

classic circumstantial evidence case. There was no evidence•

tying Mr. Traverso to the murder of his wife." After these

remarks, the prosecutor aptly recognized that "in the end, the

court will have to determine the credibility of the witnesses

and what version the Court wants to accept." As to the

credibility of the .jailhouse witnesses that provided the

confession, the prosecutor noted that "there was no testimony

regarding any deals," although she did note that "there may

have been a suspicion that the witnesses harbored a subjective

belief that they would receive a deal for their testimony.

(App. G).

Thereafter, Petitioner was sentenced to Natural Life. He

filed an appeal with the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

alleging the lack of jurisdiction of Maryland and the lack of

evidence for the conviction. Thus, in Traverso v. State, 83

Md.App. 389, 574 A.2d 923, cert. denied, 320 Md. 801, 580 A.2d

219 (1990), the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the

trial court.

On January 17, 2017, after uncovering new evidence

withheld by the prosecution, Petitioner filed a Motion to

5.

Correct an Illegal Conviction and Illegal Sentence due to

Fraud, Mistake or Irregularity, alleging that the new

discovered evidence negates his guilt because the State

violated his due process rights by failing to disclose the

following:

The deal given to all jailhouse witnesses; see Coffin,

III v. Murray, 983 F.2d 1992 (4th Cir. 1992);

Mr. Coffin's conviction for perjury in the 1970's in

the State of Florida and his true and accurate criminal

records;

Mr. Coffin's psychitric history showing motive, and

his long history of testifying falsely against other criminal

defendants in exchange for sentencing leniency; see (App. H).

The letter written by Maryland and Virginia

prosecutors to the Virginia Parole Board requesting expedited

parole release for Mr. Coffin which was granted some 2, 0 days

after testifying against Petitioner (App. I).

The letter written by Maryland and Virginia

prosecutors to the Governor of Virginia requesting the

granting of

extraordinary

cooperation with

service

Maryland

credits

authorities

in

for

their

obtaining

a

conviction against Petitioner.

All of the above were never disclosed to the defense

under the Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland which

tended to negate guilt and would have proven motive by the

jailhouse witnesses to obtain their freedom from incarceration

which they received.

Petitioner had uncovered new evidence showing that the

prosecution lied to the trial court concerning any deals given

to the jailhouse witnesses in exchange for their testimony as

revealed in Coffin, III v. Murray, 98.3 .E.2d 563 (4th Cir.

1992), where the Fourth Circuit recognized that "in return for

their cooperation with Maryland authorities, Mr. Dexter Drake

Coffin, Mr.. Thomas kirk Doyle, and Mr. Thomas Lee Jones,

'

received from the Virginia

consent of the Governor

.

.'

•

.

Board of Corrections, with the

a 36-month extraordinary service

IS

credits." Id. at 565.

In his Motion to Correct an Illegal Conviction and

SentencSentence, Petitioner alleged that he was unlawfully and

unconstitutionally confined in the State of Maryland in

violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the Full Faith and

Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Doctrine of

Stare Decisis, because the Maryland Courts had disregarded and

failed to recognize the decision from the Court of Appeals of

Virginia and that jurisdiction was obtained due to fraud by

the prosecution of Maryland and Virginia.

Another ground raised by Petitioner was that he was

unlawfully and unconstitutionally restrained of his liberty

and wrongfully convicted due to fraud because the State of

Maryland lacked jurisdiction and Prince George's County lacked

proper venue to try him. This ground was based on the fact

that during the trial, the jailhouse witness testified that

Petitioner had confessed to him that he went down a dirt road

beside or near the Bolling Air Force Base in Anacostia,

Washington, DC and strangled his wife; but when asked how he

knew of this dirt road, the witness stated that he had been

around that area many times because his brother lived close

by. Unfortunately, the prosecutor viewed this as a part of

Prince George's County, Maryland and not Washington, DC,

although no independent corroboration was presented before the

trial court on this matter.

The trial court granted a hearing which was held on April

14, 2017 at which time Petitioner represented himself pro-se

because he was unable to obtain representation from the Public

Defender of Maryland and lacked funds to retain counsel.

During the hearing, the prosecution handed Petitioner a

copy of it's response to the filed motion and argued that all

the grounds raised in the motion were previously raised and

decided, without providing any evidence to the trial court.

The prosecution never raised nor argued the law of the case

doctrine before the trial court and at the conclusion of the

hearing, the Court denied relief. (See App. B).

'I

In spite of the fact that Petitioner had presented

overwhelming evidence showing that the State withheld material

evidence from the defense tending to negate guilt, the trial

court disregarded all the evidence submitted by Petitioner.

A timely Notice of Appeal was filed with the Court of

Special Appeals of Maryland and after Petitioner filed his

appellate brief's, the Attorney General of Maryland filed his

response raising for the first time the law of the case

doctrine and argumenting that the State lacked knowledge of

Mr. Coffin's conviction for perjury (App. J)..

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland sided with the

State and denied relief. (See App.A).

Petitioner filed a timely Petition for Writ of Certiorari

wwith the Court of Appeals of Maryland argumenting that the

State should have never been allowed to raise nor argue the

the law of the case doctrine because this issue was never

raised nor decided in the trial court. Petitioner argued that

he met the burden required and established by the Court of

Appeals of Maryland and by the Supreme Court of the United

States establishing when the law of the case doctrine can be

reopened because the original decision was clearly erroneous

and adherence to it would work a manifest injustice because

Petitioner has been unconstitutionally and wrongfully

convicted in the State of Maryland.

Petitioner further argued that he had presented

overwhelming evidence in support of his argument and merited

the appellate court reopening the law of the case doctrine

which had been established by the testimony of a jailhouse

witness whom the State had withheld material evidence in

violation of Petitioner's due process rights.

EP

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The Court of Appeals of maryland abused its discretion

when it failed to grant certiorari and review the law of the

case doctrine and the fact that the original decision from the

Court of Special Appeals of maryland was clearly erroneous and

caused a manifest injustice to Petitioner.

The law of the case doctrine does not apply to

Petitioner's case primarily because the earlier appellate

decision in Traverso v. State, 83 Md.App. 385, cert. denied,

320 Md. 801 (1990) addresed the jurisdiction of the trial

court based on the testimony of a jailhouse witness who helped

the prosecution prove jurisdiction in exchange for a deal, not

disclosed to the defense, see Coffin, III v. Murray, 983 F.2d

563 (4th Cir. 1992), his conviction for perjury; which this

Court in United States it. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997)

determined that materiality of falsehood-meaning having a

natural tendency to influence, or being capable of influencing

the deision of the deisionmaking body to which it was.

addressed. In addition to all of this, Mr. Coffin has a

lengthy psychiatric history as well as a lengthy criminal

history never disclosed to the defense, prior, during or after

the trial of Petitioner that could have been used to

disqualify Mr. Coffin from testifying; thus, the manifest

injustice arouse from the State's withholding material

evidence from the defense while allowing a wrongful conviction

to go without intervention and the truth.

In. fact, the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Baltimore

City v. FOP, 449 Md. 713 (2015) held that "Courts have

identified three set of circumstances in which the law of the

case doctrine is not applied: (1) the evidence in a subsequent

trial is substantially diferent from what was before the Court

in the initial appeal; (2) a controlling authority has made a

contrary decision in the interim on the law applicable to the

particular issue; (3) the original decision was clearly

erroneous and adherence to it would work a manifest injustice.

See also, Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43,

949 A.2d 639 (2008).

The Fourth Circuit Court of Federal Appeals has also

established that according to the law of the case doctrine,

earlier decisions of a court become the law of the case and

must be followed unless .....(3) the prior decision was

clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice. Am.

Canoe, 326 F.3d at 515 (quoting Sejman it. Warner-Lambert Co.,

Inc., 845 F.2d 66, 69 (4th Cir. 1988). Under 4 Corpus Juris

§3088, p. 1106 as a general rule the doctrine of the law of

the case applies to all questions of law identical with those

on the prior appela, and on the same facts, and to such

questions only. And under 2A FED. PROC. L. ED. §3:793, p. 542,

the doctrine applies to determinations only of questions of

law and not questions of fact.

This Court in Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 236

(1997) noted that the law of the case doctrine, a court should

not reopen issues decided in earlier states of the same

litigation. In the absence of evidence that those rulings were

cleqrly erroneous or would work a manifest injustice. Id. as

cited in Parlock \7. Golden Inv. Acquisitions, LLC, 2017 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 11, 630 (2017).

Petitioner is complaining here that the Court of Appeals

of maryland abused its discretion when it failed and

disregarded to grant certiorari to review the law of the case

doctrine and its applicability to Petitioner's conviction by

reviewing the overwhelming evidence presented, withheld by the

prosecution during the trial of. Petitioner that produced a

manifest injustice and which appellate ruling was clearly

erroneous because of the withholding by the prosecution of

material evidence in violation of Petitioner's due process

rights under this Court's holding in Brady v. Maryland.

It is further submitted that with respect to the third

circumstance or exception to the law of the case doctrine,

Petitioner submits that he lacked any knowledge as to Mr.

Coffin's conviction for perjury, the deal he received after

his testimony, his long psychiatric history and his long

criminal history, all withheld by the prosecution; thus, had

10.

the prosecution disclosed all of the above, there's no doubt

that Mr. Coffin would have not been allowed to testify and the

decision of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland would

have never been decided and made the lawof the case doctrine.

It is further submitted that had the undisclosed evidence been

given to Petitioner, he would not have been suffering from a

manifest injustice. Accordingly, this exception apply to the

law ofm the case doctrine which was not applied to

Petitioner's case and merits reopening.

This Court in Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (1963) held

that the United States Constitution requires that Full faith

and Credit shall be given in each State to the

judicial

...

Proceedings of every other state. Thus full •faith and credit

generally requires every state to give to a judgment at least

the res judicata effect which the judgment would be accorded

in the State which rendered it. By the Constitutional

provision for full faith and credit, the local doctrine of res

judicata, speaking generally, become a part of national

jurisprudence, and therefore federal questions cognizable

here. See also Riley v. New York Trust Co., 315 U.S. 343, 349.

This Court went to further hold that a judgment is

entitled to full faith and credit even as to questions of

jurisdiction when the second court's inquiry discloses that

those questions have been fully and fairly litiugated and

finally decided in the court which rendered the original

judgment.

The issue of jurisdiction although previously litigated

in the trial court, the newly discovered evidence which was

withheld by the prosecution in this case, is enough to

challenge this issue by reopening the question, at which time

any court, after a complete review and application of the new

evidence presented by Petitioner, would disallow jurisdiction

to the State of Maryland and all its courts from having a

trial against this Petitioner.

What is found in this case, is the failure of the

maryland appellate courts in entertaining the full faith and

11.

credit clause of the U.S. Constitution as invoked and raised

by Petitioner on his motion in the trial court. This Court

will find that not one word with reference to this

constitutional provision was stated or reviewed by any of the

Maryland appellate courts.

In fact, not even by the trial court who also disregarded

this important aspect of the U.S. Constitution and failed to

safeguard Petitioner's constitutional rights, including the

application of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis which was also

invoked by Petitioner. No word of any of these doctrines;

thus, the conviction continues to be an erroneous and manifest

injustice that can only be cured by this Court.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Date:

9

19!

-

:

12.