FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
M. Skeels and Committee for Public Counsel Services, on brief
Susanne Reardon, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Bureau,
Appeals Division, and Maura Healey, Attorney General, on
brief for appellee.
Howard, Chief Judge, Torruella and Barron, Circuit Judges.
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.
Hyatt, petitioner-appellant, contests the district
court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hyatt argues that
Massachusetts state courts failed to apply the United States
Supreme Court's holding in Snyder v.
Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 122 (1934), in denying
his request to be present during the jury view of the crime
scene. After careful consideration, we affirm the district
court's denial of habeas corpus relief.
federal habeas review, the findings of fact of a state court
"shall be presumed to be correct." 28 U.S.C. §
2254(e)(1); see Sumner v. Mata,
455 U.S. 591, 592-93 (1982) (per curiam). Accordingly, we
must accept them unless convinced by clear and convincing
evidence that they are erroneous. Lynch v.
Ficco, 438 F.3d 35, 39 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting
McCambridge v. Hall, 303 F.3d 24,
26 (1st Cir. 2002) (en banc)). We take the facts as presented
by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which affirmed
Hyatt's conviction, supplemented with other record facts
consistent with the state court's findings.
Scoggins v. Hall, 765 F.3d 53, 54
(1st Cir. 2014).
2009, Hyatt was involved in the shooting of four people
outside a bar in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston,
Massachusetts. A grand jury in Suffolk County indicted Hyatt
on the following counts: one count of unlawful possession of
a firearm, one count of unlawful possession of ammunition,
one count of possession of a loaded firearm, three counts of
aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, three
counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, and four counts of
possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
pled not guilty to all counts, and a jury trial commenced on
February 6, 2012, before Justice Brady of the Massachusetts
Superior Court. On February 8, Justice Brady discussed the
logistics and rules for a jury view of the scene where the
shooting took place, which would take place on the following
day. Hyatt's trial counsel requested Hyatt's presence
during the view. Justice Brady responded that Hyatt could not
go because of security reasons. He added, "He's in
custody. I can't bring him. I don't have enough
security people for that. I've never had a defendant
[attend a view], other than one who's on the
that day, Hyatt's counsel renewed her request that Hyatt
be allowed to accompany the jury on the view. In response to
the request, the court engaged in the following exchange:
THE COURT: Look, I'm sorry. He's in custody for very
serious charges. It's a very serious event. I'm not
going to allow him to come on the view because I just
don't have adequate security. Further, I can't have
him without chains out there, so the jury is going to be
there. It just isn't a workable situation. So I
understand that the [Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]
has never changed the Judge's discretion about that, so