Greene v. Palakovich (482 F. Supp. 2d 624, 2007)

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2007-04-02

Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

Citations

Full opinion text

MEMORANDUM

GREEN, Senior District Judge.

Presently pending is the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Straw-bridge and Respondents’ Objections thereto. For the reasons set forth below, Respondents’ Objections are overruled and the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted.

BACKGROUND

In 1996, Petitioner Eric Greene (“Greene”) was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for second-degree murder, three counts of robbery, and conspiracy. Greene’s convictions arose out of the 1993 killing of a store clerk during a food market robbery. At trial, the prosecution produced evidence that Greene, who was tried under the name Jermaine Trice, entered Lilly’s Market with his co-defendants, Atil Finney and Julius Jenkins, while co-defendants Gregory Womac and Naree Abdul-lah waited in Womac’s car. During the course of the robbery, Jenkins shot and killed store clerk Francisco Azcona with a .45 caliber revolver, and Petitioner stole the store’s cash register. Three days after the homicide, four members of the same group robbed a check-cashing agency two blocks away from Lilly’s Market. Shortly thereafter, police arrested the four men and recovered a .45 caliber revolver near the arrest location. Ballistics test revealed that the gun police recovered was the weapon used to kill Francisco Azcona.

Petitioner was charged with second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy, and tried before a jury together with four co-defendants. Defendants Finney and Wom-ack confessed to the crimes, and excerpts of these confessions were admitted at trial. The confessions were redacted to exclude the names and personal details of the non-confessing co-defendants. Words and phrases such as “someone,” “blank,” “someone else,” “two guys,” “we,” and “they” replaced the names of the non-confessing defendants. The trial court instructed the jury that each confession was only to be used against the particular defendant who made it.

Following his conviction on March 16, 1996, Petitioner filed several post-trial motions. The trial court denied these motions on March 10, 1997, and the trial judge subsequently sentenced Petitioner to life in prison. Petitioner then filed an appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which upheld his conviction in an opinion dated December 16, 1997. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted a petition for allocator on August 14, 1998; however, this decision was reversed on April 29, 1999 when the same court determined that allocator had been improvidently granted. Greene did not file a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On August 3, 1999, Greene filed a petition for state collateral review under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). The trial court, acting as the PCRA court dismissed the petition in 2000, and this dismissal was affirmed by the Superior Court in 2003. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocator in 2004.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND RESPONDENTS’ OBJECTIONS

Greene filed the instant pro se petition for habeas corpus relief in which he enumerates five claims; however, the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge (“the Report”) identifies and denies twelve distinct claims advanced by Greene. The Report recommends denying the petition for habe-as corpus, but granting a certificate of appealability on one claim only — Petitioner’s assertion that the trial court’s failure to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants unfairly infringed upon his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by subjecting him to evidence coming from certain non-testifying co-defendants’ improperly redacted confessions.

While no objections to the Report were filed by Petitioner, Respondents object on three grounds: 1) they argue that reasonable jurists cannot disagree as to the law applicable to the Petitioner’s confrontation clause claim; 2) they argue that any improper redaction of the admitted confessions was harmless error; and 3) they argue that Petitioner has not procedurally exhausted his confrontation clause claim. For the reasons stated below, each of Respondents’ objections will be overruled.

1. Disagreement Over Applicable Law

A certificate of appealability may be issued upon the denial of a habeas corpus petition in situations where reasonable jurists could disagree as to the merits of the Petitioner’s claim. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Because reasonable jurists could disagree as to whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 197, 118 S.Ct. 1151, 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998), applies to the analysis of Petitioner’s confrontation clause claim, a certificate of appealability will be issued for this specific claim only.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a federal habeas court reviews a state court decision only to determine whether it was “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application” of “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). A divided Supreme Court addressed the meaning of “clearly established Federal law’ in Williams v. Taylor, where it concluded that clearly established law “refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme Court’s] decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” See 529 U.S. 362, 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (O’Connor, J.) (joined by four Justices); but see Williams, 529 U.S. at 380, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (Stevens, J., concurring) (joined by three Justices) (stating that the appropriate standard to apply to a habeas petition is the law applicable “at the time the state decision became final”). Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have followed Justice O’Connor’s standard for identifying the point in time for determining the applicable law. See Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 660, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Conversely, some Third Circuit Court of Appeals cases have applied different formulations of this timing rule. See Fischetti v. Johnson, 384 F.3d 140, 148 (3d Cir.2004) (stating that the AEDPA requires the court to determine “what the clearly established Supreme Court decisional law was at the time petitioner’s conviction became final”) (italics added); Lewis v. Johnson, 359 F.3d 646, 652-53 (3rd Cir.2004) (citing Williams, 529 U.S. at 390, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (Stevens, J., concurring)); but see Priester v. Vaughn, 382 F.3d 394, 400 (3d Cir.2004) (refusing to consider a Supreme Court decision announced after the state court ruled on Petitioner’s direct appeal); Johnson v. Carroll, 369 F.3d 253, 257 (3d Cir. 2004) (identifying “the time the state court renders its decision” as the applicable point on the time line).

Determination of the appropriate applicable Supreme Court precedent is key to assessing the merits of Petitioner’s claim. In between the time the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled on Petitioner’s case and the time his conviction became final, the Supreme Court decided Gray, which held that a redacted confession of a non-testifying co-defendant which “replaces a defendant’s name with an obvious indication of deletion, such as a blank space, the word ‘deleted,’ or a similar symbol” violates the “defendant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause” 523 U.S. at 192, 118 S.Ct. 1151. If Gray applies to Petitioner’s claim, then it may bolster the merit of his claim because blank spaces and similar symbols of deletion were used in the redactions of his co-defendants’ confessions. The Report concludes that the time of the relevant state court decision is the appropriate standard; therefore, it did not factor Gray into its analysis and denied the Petitioner’s claim. Respondents object to the Report’s recommendation that a certificate of appealability be issued. Because reasonable jurists could disagree as to the appropriate point in time upon which to identify the “clearly established law,” Respondents’ objection is overruled. Petitioner’s confrontation clause claim is denied but a certificate of appealability will be issued.

2. Harmless Error

Respondents further argue that even if Gray is the appropriate standard to apply in this case, the error committed is harmless because it would not result in a different outcome. An error is not harmless when it “had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 686, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (citing Kotteakos v. U.S., 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)).

Respondents assert that even if the confessions admitted at Greene’s trial were improperly redacted, such error was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence presented against him. To support this conclusion, they cite several eases in which the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit have found that admission of an improperly redacted confession constituted harmless error. See Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); United States v. Ruff, 717 F.2d 855 (3d Cir.1983), cert, denied, 464 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 733, 79 L.Ed.2d 192 (1984). However, it should be noted that in these cases, the defendant asserting the confrontation clause violation had himself also confessed to the crime, thus adding significant weight to the prosecution’s evidence. This is not the situation in the present case, for Petitioner never confessed to the crimes for which he was convicted. As the Report articulates, a reasonable jurist could find that the jury concluded that Petitioner’s name corresponded to one of the blanks in the redacted confession, exactly the type of inference that Gray seeks to prevent. See Gray, 523 U.S. at 193, 118 S.Ct. 1151 (explaining that a when a co-defendant’s confession is redacted using a blank space in place of a defendant’s name, “the jury will often realize that the confession refers specifically to the defendant”). Respondents’ objection based upon harmless error is accordingly overruled.

3. Exhaustion of State Law Appeals

Respondents argue that Petitioner’s confrontation clause claim is procedurally defaulted because he did not properly exhaust the claim in state court. They assert that the only time Petitioner raised this particular claim was in his request for allocator from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They argue that in order to exhaust all state law remedies, the Petitioner must present his claim regarding improper redaction to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which they claim he failed to do. See Doctor v. Walters, 96 F.3d 675, 678 (3d Cir.1996) (petitioner must give each level of state courts a fair level of review); Gibson v. Scheidemantel, 805 F.2d 135, 138 (3rd Cir.1986) (stating that both the facts and the legal theory of petitioner’s arguments must be presented to the state courts).

The Report contains no analysis of any alleged procedural default for this particular claim. Respondents provide a copy of Greene’s Brief to the Superior Court to support their argument; however, this document demonstrates that the general issue of the redaction of the confessions was addressed. The Brief presents a general confrontation clause claim regarding the redacted confessions of Greene’s co-defendants and relies upon major Supreme Court cases to advance the argument. See Brief for Petitioner to Superior Court, at 22-24 (citing Bruton and Richardson ). Greene’s confrontation clause claim was properly exhausted in state court proceedings; therefore, Respondents’ third objection is overruled.

For the reasons discussed above, Respondents’ objections to the Report are overruled. An appropriate order follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of March 2007, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, and Respondents’ Objections

thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ Objections are OVERRULED.

2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

4. A certificate of appealability is issued on Petitioner’s Confrontation Clause claim only.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

STRAWBRIDGE, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Petitioner Eric Greene’s (alternatively “Greene” or “Petitioner”) pro se petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Greene, who is presently a resident of the State Correctional Institution-Smithfield in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania challenges his 1996 conviction and life sentence for second degree murder, three counts of robbery and conspiracy. In his rambling petition, he seeks application of the writ for reasons associated with the trial court’s refusal to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants, certain evidentiary rulings, his apparent inability to get access to the transcript of the trial proceedings and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons set out below and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), this Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED, but that a certificate of appealability be GRANTED with respect to Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment confrontation claim arising out of the introduction of evidence of two of his co-defendants’ redacted confessions.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On March 16, 1996, Greene was convicted in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas of second degree murder, three counts of robbery and conspiracy. He filed timely post-trial motions raising various claims concerning: (1) trial court error by failing to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants; (2) trial court error by admitting evidence concerning another robbery; (3) trial court error by failing to grant a mistrial after a police officer vouched for the credibility of a prosecution witness; and (4) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. The trial court ultimately denied these motions in an opinion filed on March 10, 1997. Greene was then sentenced to lifetime incarceration.

A timely appeal was filed with the Pennsylvania Superior Court. It was denied in an opinion filed on December 16, 1997. A petition for allocator with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was initially granted on August 14, 1998. On April 29, 1999, however, that same court entered an Order declining to accept the appeal, stating that allocator had been improvidently granted. Petitioner did not file a petition for certio-rari with the United States Supreme Court. Thus, his state court conviction became final on July 29, 1999. See Sup.Ct. R. 13(1).

On August 3, 1999, Greene filed a pro se petition seeking state collateral review under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46. In the pro se petition, he raised issues pertaining to ineffective assistance of counsel; prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; and trial court error in admitting evidence concerning another robbery. Counsel was appointed and, on July 7, 2000, filed a no merit letter. On August 22, 2000, the trial court, acting as the PCRA court, dismissed the petition. An appeal followed. On December 31, 2003, the appeal was denied and the Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court’s decision. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocator on July 27, 2004.

B. Factual Background

Greene’s conviction grew out of a December 11, 1993 robbery of a Philadelphia food market. The trial court’s opinion denying Greene’s post-trial motions sets out the circumstances of that robbery and another offense relevant to our consideration of the issues raised in this petition. Note that Greene was tried under the name of Jermaine Trice and is referred to by the trial court judge as Trice.

On Saturday, December 11, 1993, Jermaine Trice, defendant herein (a/k/a/ Eric Greene) along with Gregory Wom-ack, Atil Finney, Naree Abdullah and Julius Jenkins agreed in street parlance, to “get paid,” i.e., to rob Lilly’s Market, 3122 West York Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Demond Jackson, who was present but did not enter into the Conspiracy, asked for a ride to “West Philly.” He later testified against the defendants.

Gregory Womack drove his car, a 1979 Oldsmobile Cutlass Cruiser, a 4-door silver color station wagon with the four other conspirators. Demond Jackson, the non-conspirator who had asked for a ride, was also in the car.

Jackson, Womack and Abdullah waited in the car as this Defendant, Jermaine Trice (a/k/a Eric Greene), Atil Finney and defendant Jenkins entered the store.

Julius Jenkins went to the counter along with Jermaine Trice. At the cash register were Anna Azcona and her sister, Andrea Rodriguez. Francisco Azco-na was not immediately visible.

Jenkins announced a hold-up and demanded the cash. Francisco Azcona was kneeling on the floor stocking shelves. As he tried to stand up, Jenkins shot and killed him.

After the shooting, Trice grabbed the cash register and all three returned to the car.

Womack drove all six to Naree Abdul-lah’s home where the money was divided among the conspirators. The passenger, Jackson, was offered a share of the money but refused. He did not want to be included in the robbery.

Francisco Azcona was killed with a .45 revolver, which shot a .44 caliber bullet.

Three days after the homicide, in the same 1979 Oldsmobile, four of the defendants, excluding Finney; i.e., Trice (a/ k/a/ Greene), Abdullah, Jenkins and Womack were in the vicinity of Ace Check Cashing, located at 29th and York Streets in Philadelphia, two blocks from Lilly’s Market. (All four have been convicted of a separate Robbery at that location but that fact was not allowed as evidence in this case.) The Court ruled that proof of other crimes was not evidence in this case but access to a weapon was admissible. Since evidence of that crime was not admissible at this trial, the allowable evidence disclosed that they were all in the area of the Ace Check Cashing Agency and all left abruptly.

As they exited the agency, and entered the awaiting car, Police Officer McKeever observed what was happening and followed them attempting to stop the car. Other police, who arrived subsequently, recovered a .45 caliber revolver near the location where Jenkins and Abdullah were arrested. The gun had been abandoned in the vicinity of their arrest.

A comparison of the fatal bullet, a .44 recovered from the body of Francisco Azcona and submitted to Ballistics by the Medical Examiner, with the gun recovered after the Ace Check Cashing incident, revealed that the .45 revolver was the same gun used to kill Francisco Azcona three days earlier.

Both the homicide at Lilly’s Market and the subsequent incident near the Ace Check Cashing have certain similar distinctive characteristics. Four of the five defendants in this case knew each other and were together; the same car was used; the location of each incident was within two blocks of each other; the .45 calibre gun at the Ace Check Cashing Agency incident was the same gun in the possession of the killer in this case. This court ruled that the incident at the Check Cashing Agency was not a signature crime where proof of one would prove the other. However, evidence of the parties’ relationship to each other, the gun and similarity of the car was admissible. All of these factors were considered by the jury in this case. Jenkins, who was armed with the fatal gun, was tried by a “death penalty” qualified jury. The others were tried subject to possible Second Degree Murder, Robbery and Conspiracy charges.

Commonwealth v. Trice, C.P. No. 95-06-0118, slip op. at 1-3 (Phila.Co. Mar. 10, 1997)

C. Nature of Claims

Our initial challenge is to sort out and categorize Petitioner’s various claims for relief. We start with his “Form Application for Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254” (“Form Application”) where he articulates five claims as follows:

1. Denial of the right to an effective appeal because of the trial court’s failure to provide a complete trial transcript and because of all prior counsel’s ineffectiveness in failing to obtain the missing trial transcripts;

2. Several violations of his rights caused by the trial court’s failure to sever his trial from that of his co-defendants;

3. Trial court error in admitting evidence of a separate, unrelated robbery;

4. All prior counsel’s ineffective assistance; and

5. Denial of his right to appeal the PCRA court’s decision.

On closer examination, however, and when read in conjunction with his “Brief for Petitioner”, we believe it would be proper to say that Greene has asserted as many as 12 relatively distinct claims.

The first claim in his Form Application is really two (2) distinct claims: (1) that he was denied the right to an effective appeal because he was not provided with a trial transcript; and (2) that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel because of his counsel’s failure to obtain the transcript.

In the second claim in the Form Application dealing with the severance issue he really makes six (6) distinct claims: (3) that the trial court’s failure to sever subjected him to a death qualified jury; (4) that the trial court’s failure to sever unfairly infringed upon his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by subjecting him to evidence coming from certain co-defendants’ improperly redacted confessions; (5) that the trial court’s failure to sever subjected him to prejudicial testimony (concerning a separate robbery) given in response to questioning from the prosecutor; (6) that the trial court’s failure to sever subjected him to prejudicial testimony (concerning a separate robbery) given in response to questions from a co-defendant’s counsel; (7) that the trial court’s failure to sever prejudiced him by having a police witness vouch for the testimony of a Commonwealth witness when cross-examined by a co-defendant’s counsel; and (8) that the trial court’s failure to sever prejudiced him by giving the prosecutor the opportunity to refer to the confessions of his co-defendants and to gesture to all defendants indicating that they were all (including Greene) implicated by the confessions.

The third claim presented in Petitioner’s Form Application, (9) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence concerning a separate unrelated robbery, stands alone. The fourth claim presented is (10) that counsel who assisted Greene at both trial and on appeal was ineffective by failing to properly investigate and try the case, and (11) that separate PCRA counsel was ineffective in his representation of Petitioner in the PCRA process. Finally, in his fifth claim Greene asserts (12) that he was denied the right to appeal the PCRA court’s denial of relief due to governmental interference.

We will treat these claims as essentially falling into three broad categories. They are:

(1) claims that trial court actions violated petitioner’s due process rights (claims 1, 9 and 12);

(2) claims related to the failure to sever (claims 3 through 8); and

(3) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (claims 2,10 and 11).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Cognizability of Claims

Habeas relief is only available for violations of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). For this reason, claims which are based upon state law are not cognizable. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). Further, habeas review concerns only the proceedings that have resulted in the petitioner’s conviction, and does not concern any state court collateral matters. See Hassine v. Zimmerman, 160 F.3d 941, 954 (3d Cir.1998). Thus, claims which are based upon problems with obtaining state collateral relief are not cognizable. See id. This includes any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(i).

B. Exhaustion and Procedural Default

A habeas petitioner must exhaust state court remedies before obtaining ha-beas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Traditionally, this meant that the petitioner had to show that his claim was fairly presented to the trial court, the Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. See Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, 959 F.2d 1227, 1230 (3d Cir.1992). However, in light of a May 9, 2000 order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, it is no longer necessary for Pennsylvania inmates to seek allowance of appeal from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in order to exhaust state remedies. See Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210, 233-34 (3d Cir.2004).

A claim presented to the state courts which was not reviewed on the merits because of a failure to comply with a state rule of procedure is considered procedurally defaulted. See Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 262-63, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). When such a claim is not later addressed on the merits by a higher court, we must presume that the higher state court’s decision rests on the procedural default identified by the lower state court. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991). Finally, when a habeas petitioner has failed to exhaust a claim and it is clear that the state courts would not consider it because of a state procedural rule, the claim is also considered procedurally defaulted. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n. 1, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).

Procedurally defaulted claims cannot be reviewed unless the petitioner “can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. at 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546. In order to demonstrate cause, the petitioner must show that “some objective factor external to the defense impeded [the petitioner’s] efforts to comply with the state’s procedural rule.” Id. at 753, 111 S.Ct. 2546 (citation omitted). Examples of cause include: (1) a showing that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available; (2) a showing that some interference by state officials made compliance with the state procedural rule impracticable; (3) attorney error that constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 753-54, 111 S.Ct. 2546.

The fundamental miscarriage of justice exception is limited to cases of “actual innocence”. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 321-22, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). In order to demonstrate that he is “actually innocent”, the petitioner must present new, reliable evidence of his innocence that was not presented at trial. Id. at 316-17, 324, 115 S.Ct. 851. The court must consider the evidence of innocence presented along with all the evidence in the record, even that which was excluded or unavailable at trial. Id. at 327-28, 115 S.Ct. 851. Once all this evidence is considered, the petitioner’s defaulted claims can only be reviewed if the court is satisfied “that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 327, 115 S.Ct. 851.

C. Standard for Issuance of the Writ

The habeas statute as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) provides that this court cannot grant habeas relief on a claim that has been adjudicated by a state court unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(l)-(2). The habeas statute also provides that any findings of fact made by the state court must be presumed to be correct. Petitioner will bear the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

A state court’s adjudication of a claim is contrary to Supreme Court precedent if the state court has applied a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in Supreme Court precedent or if the state court confronts a set of facts which are materially indistinguishable from a decision of the Supreme Court and the state court arrives at a different result from the Supreme Court. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 at 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). In determining whether a state court’s decision was contrary to Supreme Court precedent, the habeas court must not be quick to attribute error. See Woodford v. Visciotti 537 U.S. 19, 24, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (per curiam). Rather, state court decisions should be “given the benefit of the doubt.” Id. In that regard, it is not necessary that the state court cite the governing Supreme Court precedent or even be aware of the governing Supreme Court precedent. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002) (per curiam,). All that is required is that there be no contradiction in the Supreme Court precedent with either “the reasoning [or] the result of the state-court decision.” Id.

If, however, the state court does correctly identify the governing United States Supreme Court precedent, unreasonable application analysis, rather than contrary analysis, is appropriate. Id. at 406, 120 S.Ct. 1495. A state court decision constitutes an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of the habeas petitioner’s case. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 407-08, 120 S.Ct. 1495. In making the unreasonable application determination, the habeas court must ask whether the state court’s application of Supreme Court precedent was objectively unreasonable. Id. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The habeas court may not grant relief simply because it believes the state court’s adjudication of the petitioner’s claim was incorrect. Id. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Rather, the habeas court must be convinced that the state court’s adjudication of the claim was objectively unreasonable. Id. When deciding whether a state court’s application of Supreme Court precedent was unreasonable, it is permissible to consider the decisions of lower federal courts which have applied Supreme Court precedent. See Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F.3d 36, 71 n. 24 (3d Cir.2002); Moore v. Morton, 255 F.3d 95, 104 n. 8 (3d Cir. 2001).

With respect to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), the Third Circuit has noted that both, “express the same fundamental principle of deference to state court [factual] findings.” Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210, 235 (3d Cir.2004). The difference between the two provisions is that § 2254(d)(2) requires the habeas court to restrict its review of the state court’s factual determination to the evidence that was presented to the state court. Id. In light of the evidence presented to the state court, the habeas court must determine whether the state court’s adjudication of the claim was reasonable. Id. On the other hand, § 2254(e)(1) refers to “specific factual determinations made by the state court, and that are subsidiary to the ultimate decision.” Id. Those subsidiary factual determinations are subject to a presumption of correctness which the petitioner must rebut by clear and convincing evidence. Id. The petitioner may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the state court in order to rebut the presumption. Id. In the end however, even if the petitioner can rebut certain individual factual determinations under the § 2254(e)(1) standard for the habeas court to grant relief under § 2254(d)(2), it must decide whether, in light of the state court’s unrebutted factual determinations, that state court’s the adjudication of the claim was unreasonable. Id. at 236 n. 19.

D. Certificate of Appealability

In order for Greene to be able to appeal the dismissal and denial of any of his claims, the court must grant him a certificate of appealability (“COA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A COA can issue with respect to claims resolved on procedural grounds such as noncognizability or procedural default if “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and [if] jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). In Slack, the Supreme Court went on to explain that:

Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. In such a circumstance, no appeal would be warranted.

Id. Further, the Supreme Court has held that, since the petitioner must make showings with respect to both the procedural issue and the underlying, constitutional issue, a court may resolve the COA question if either showing is lacking. Id. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

For claims resolved by application of the AEDPA standard of review contained at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), a COA can only be granted if jurists of reason could find the court’s application of the AEDPA standard of review to the claim was debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).

For the reasons set forth below, we believe that Greene has failed to meet AEDPA’s heavy burden with respect to all of his cognizable claims which are not procedurally defaulted. At the same time, however, we conclude for the reasons discussed within that “jurists of reason” would find debatable a denial of the writ with respect to his Confrontation Clause claim. Accordingly, as to that claim, and that claim alone, we RECOMMEND that a CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY be GRANTED.

E. Due Process Claims

Three of Greene’s claims — those relating to his access to a complete trial transcript, the admission of evidence of an arguably connected robbery and his right to appeal his denial of his PCRA petition- — appear to implicate his right to due process. We discuss each claim on an issue-by-issue basis within. We find that each of these claims which we discuss within are either not cognizable or procedurally defaulted. We also find that Greene has not established the cause and prejudice or fundamental miscarriage of justice necessary to require that any of them be reviewed on the merits.

1. Right to an Effective Appeal

Petitioner’s first claim is that he was denied the right to an effective appeal because the trial court failed to provide him a complete trial transcript. See Brief in Support pp. 11-19. He raises this issue both with respect to his direct appeal and his PCRA proceedings.

In that habeas relief can only be granted with respect to the proceedings that have resulted in the petitioner’s conviction, his complaint about not having received a complete trial transcript during PCRA proceedings is not cognizable. See Hassine v. Zimmerman, 160 F.3d 941, 954 (3d Cir.1998).

A failure of the trial court to provide Petitioner a complete trial transcript on direct appeal, however, is cognizable in that he was indigent at the time and the state courts have a duty to provide indigent defendants with a copy of the trial transcript or an equivalent report of the events at trial such as to allow for pursuit of an adequate and effective direct appeal. See Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 495-96, 83 S.Ct. 774, 9 L.Ed.2d 899 (1963); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 16, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956).

This claim was raised on direct appeal and was adjudicated by the Superi- or Court. There, Petitioner argued that he had not been provided the transcript of the testimony of Demond Jackson, the only witness who identified him as a participant in the crime. See Commonwealth v. Trice, No. 01829 Philadelphia 1996, slip op. at 4 (Pa.Super.Dee.16, 1997). The Superior Court determined, however, that Greene had waived this claim because he had failed to avail himself of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1923 (“Rule 1923”). Id. at 4-5. The rule provides that, when a transcript is unavailable, an appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence from the best available means, including his own recollection. Id. Because the Superior Court found that Petitioner had waived his claim by failing to comply with the rule, it had been procedurally defaulted.

Greene has made no effort to demonstrate cause and prejudice to excuse the default of this cognizable claim. He has, however, asserted his innocence. See Petitioner’s September 30, 2005 Response at [6], [7]. Yet, the actual innocence standard established by Schlup v. Delo, supra, is not satisfied by simple assertions of innocence. Instead, to avail himself of the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception for procedural default, Greene must provide new, reliable evidence of his innocence that was not presented at his trial. See Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. at 316-17, 324, 115 S.Ct. 851. This Greene has utterly failed to do. Accordingly, his cognizable claim is procedurally defaulted.

2. Testimony about the Ace Check Cashing Robbery

Petitioner’s ninth claim is that it was error for the trial judge to have admitted any testimony concerning the Ace Check Cashing robbery. See Brief in Support pp. 48-50. Greene argues that the decision to admit this evidence was an error of state evidentiary law. As the claim is based upon state law, it is not cognizable. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. at 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475.

3. Governmental Interference with PCRA Appeal

Petitioner’s twelfth claim is that is that he was denied the right to appeal the PCRA court’s denial of PCRA relief as a result of governmental interference. See Brief in Support pp. 56-60. He complains that the state court officials failed to provide him with transcripts of trial proceedings which he contends were needed in order to effectively appeal the PCRA court’s denial of PCRA relief to the Superior Court. As this relates directly to state court collateral proceedings, it is not cognizable. See Hassine v. Zimmerman, 160 F.3d at 954.

F. Severance-Related, Claims

Greene raises six claims which are related to the alleged trial court error of failing to sever his trial from the trial of his co-defendant Julius Jenkins. He argues that this failure subjected him to a death qualified jury, infringed upon his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, subjected him to prejudicial testimony concerning another, unrelated offense, allowed police testimony vouching for a commonwealth witness, and gave the prosecutor the opportunity to refer to him by gesture and in general statements when referring to the confessions of co-defendants in closing argument.

We discuss each severance-related claim within. We find one claim is not cognizable and another is procedurally defaulted. The others are reviewed on their merits. Given the current state of habeas jurisprudence, we conclude that they all lack merit.

1. The Death Qualified Jury

Petitioner’s third claim is that is that his trial should have been severed at least from co-defendant, Julius Jenkins, in that he (Jenkins) was subject to the death penalty and Petitioner was not. See Brief in Support pp. 20-23. Petitioner notes that this circumstance denied him a jury of his peers because it allowed 23 potential jurors who were opposed to the death penalty to be excused from service.

This claim was adjudicated by the Superior Court on direct appeal. That court concluded that the claim lacked merit because the United States Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of death qualified juries even for co-defendants where the death penalty was not being sought. Commonwealth v. Trice, No. 01829 Philadelphia 1996, slip op. at 7 (Pa.Super.Dec.16, 1997) (citing, inter alia, Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986)).

In Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 107 S.Ct. 2906, 97 L.Ed.2d 336 (1987), the Supreme Court was faced with a claim virtually identical to that raised by Petitioner. David Buchanan was not subject to the death penalty but his co-defendant was. Buchanan, 483 U.S. at 404, 408, 107 S.Ct. 2906. Unfortunately for Buchanan (and Greene here), the Supreme Court concluded that he could not demonstrate that being tried by a death qualified jury violated either his right to a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community nor his right to an impartial jury. Id. at 415-20, 107 S.Ct. 2906. The Court repeatedly cited its decision in Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986), as support for its conclusions.

The Superior Court’s adjudication of Greene’s claim is entirely consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Buchanan. Indeed, like the United States Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Superior Court relied upon Lockhart v. McCree as support for its decision. Since the Superi- or Court’s adjudication is entirely consistent with Buchanan, it cannot be said to be contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) provides no basis to afford Petitioner habeas relief. Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) provides Petitioner no relief as he does not challenge the Superior Court’s adjudication of his claim as being unreasonable in light of the facts presented to the Superior Court.

2. Redaction of the Confessions of Co-Defendants Finney and Wom-ack

Greene’s fourth claim is that the confessions of his two co-defendants, Atil Finney and Gregory Womack, were improperly redacted. See Brief in Support pp. 23-29. Greene argues that the redactions were insufficient to protect his Confrontation Clause rights under the line of cases which follow Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).

At trial, Detective Michael Gross read the redacted confession he had taken from codefendant Finney. Gross’s testimony was based on questions the detective had posed to Finney and Finney’s responses:

We were riding around in this, this guy’s car, me and three other guys were in North Philadelphia. We — when one said let’s get paid. Everyone said okay and we saw this store. So me and two guys went in the store. When we got inside two guys stayed up front and I stayed to the back. One guy had his gun on the guy and was at the cash register. Getting the money. But it wouldn’t. I heard a shot and I looked over. Blood was coming out of the guy’s mouth. After that someone grabbed the register and we all ran out.

(N.T. 3/5/96 at 117-18). Gross then testified about Finney’s description of leaving the scene of the crime:

We ran to the car and went back up Germantown. We went to someone’s house. It’s an apartment. And two guys got screwdrivers and opened up the register.

Id. at 118. According to Gross, Finney then explained that $65 was in the cash register and that it was split up evenly between all the participants. Id. Gross testified that he asked Finney if he knew any of the defendants by name. Finney told him that, “one is and the other is. I only know two of them by their nicknames.” Id. Gross told the jury that he showed some photographs and Finney identified three of them as follows: “Number three is. Number six is. Number eight is.” Id. at 119. He was also asked if he knew “a guy named blank?” Id. Fin-ney responded that he did and he identified a photograph of “blank.” Id. Gross then testified that he also asked Finney who shot the owner of the store and he responded, “Someone.” Id. at 120. During Detective Gross’s reading of the redacted confession, the trial court instructed the jury that a rule of evidence provides that the confession of a defendant to certain criminal actions can be used by the jury only against the defendant who made the confession and not against any other defendant. Id. at 125. The jurors were instructed that they could not use the confession in any way against any other defendant. Id.

At trial, Detective Joseph Walsh read the redacted confession he had taken from co-defendant Womack. The redacted confession was based on questions Detective Walsh posed to co-defendant Womack and Womack’s responses:

“QUESTION: Did you know the deceased, Francisco Azcona?

ANSWER: No.

QUESTION: Do you know who shot and killed Francisco Azcona?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUESTION: What is his last name and where does he live?

ANSWER: His name is blank. He used to live on top of the bar.

QUESTION: How long have you known him?

ANSWER: About three or four years.

QUESTION: Where were you when he shot and killed Francisco Azcona?

ANSWER: In my car, the station wagon.

QUESTION: I want you to go on in your own words and tell me what you know about the murder of Francisco Azcona, that occurred on December the 11th, 1993.

ANSWER: It was me and another guy. We were in the car, the other three went in the store. The car was around the corner and then they came out of the store carrying a cash register. As we pulled off the shooter said he shot the guy. I think someone asked him why did he shoot the guy? He didn’t answer him. Then we drove up our neighborhood. Then we drove to someone’s and we opened the register and got the money and we took the register and dumped it in a trash dumpster in a townhouse.

QUESTION: Do you know someone’s real name and where he lives?

ANSWER: I don’t know his real name. He lives somewhere in blank.

QUESTION: Do you know someone else’s real name and where he lives?

ANSWER: We call him blank. I don’t know where he lives. Somewhere up dog [sic] town.

QUESTION: What is someone else’s real name and where does he live?

ANSWER: I don’t know his real name — “

(N.T. 3/6/96 at 38-39). After a sidebar, Detective Walsh completed co-defendant Womack’s answer as follows: “I don’t know his real name, but when we were locked up he used blank.” Id. at 41-42. In the remainder of the confession as read by Walsh, Womack explained that he had known one of the participants for 10 years and had met another just before the robbery. Id. at 42. Womack also stated he was not sure if anyone other than the shooter was armed, id. at 42, that the gun the shooter had was a .45 revolver, id. at 48, that the money was split among all the participants, id. at 43-44, and that he drove the getaway car. Id. at 44.

At the time Detective Walsh read Wom-ack’s redacted confession to the jury, the trial court did not provide any limiting instructions as it had when Finney’s redacted confession was read. However, when the court delivered its final instructions to the jury, it explicitly told them that they could only use the confessions of co-defendants Finney and Womack against the defendant who had made the confession and that they could not be used as evidence against any other defendant. (N.T. 3/11/96 at 16).

Petitioner’s claim was adjudicated by the Superior Court on direct appeal. That court, in its December 16, 1997 opinion, noted that the statements of Finney and Womack had been redacted to remove any reference to the other defendants by name and to replace certain references by pronouns such as “we” and “they.” Commonwealth v. Trice, No. 01829 Philadelphia 1996, slip op. at 8-9 (Pa.Super.Dec.16, 1997). The Superior Court also noted that the trial court had given proper limiting instructions and that Petitioner was not unduly prejudiced by the redacted statements. Id. at 9. For all these reasons and because of the preference for joint trials of co-conspirators, the Superior Court concluded that Petitioner’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated. Id.

As we set out in our procedural history (p.2 infra), the decision of the Pennsylvania courts did not become final until July 29, 1999 largely because of the determination that allocator to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had been improvidently granted. As we discuss within, the difference between these two dates is significant because of the Supreme Court’s March 9, 1998 decision in Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 118 S.Ct. 1151, 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998).

In consideration of the standard of review mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and recognizing the timing and potential significance of Gray, we must decide whether the, “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” is to be considered as of the date the Superior Court adjudicated Petitioner’s claim (December 16, 1997) or on the date Petitioner’s conviction became final on direct appeal (July 29,1999).

a. Timing of Clearly Established Law

If the applicable date to consider the state court determination of federal law is the date the judgment became final (July 29, 1999), we would have to take into account the Supreme Court’s Gray decision. In that Confrontation Clause case, which came down in March 1998, the Supreme Court clarified the law by making it clear that the simple redaction of the name of a non-confessing co-defendant with obvious indications of deletions, may not be enough to provide the Confrontation Clause protection mandated by our law. If the earlier date (December 16, 1997) is used, Gray will not have to be considered a part of the relevant precedent. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the state of United States Supreme Court precedent must be considered as of the earlier date, which means we will evaluate the matter without the benefit of the Gray decision.

The Third Circuit’s decision in Priester v. Vaughn, 382 F.3d 394 (3d Cir.2004), is instructive. Priester was convicted in 1992. His conviction did not become final however until January 1, 1994 after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s denial of his petition for allocator and he chose not to seek certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. At issue was the Commonwealth’s use of his co-defendant’s redacted confession where reference to Priester was deleted in favor of phrases like “the other guy.” Making specific reference to Gray, the Third Circuit concluded that Priester could not show that the Superior Court acted unreasonably by failing to consider Gray in that it was decided several years after the Superior Court’s adjudication of Priester’s claim.

While the Third Circuit appears to suggest that Supreme Court precedent should be evaluated as of the date of the Superior Court’s adjudication, the court was not required to consider the alternative finality date in that there was no relevant precedent to consider between the time of the Superior Court’s adjudication of the claim (November 18, 1992) and the time that Priester’s conviction became final (January 1,1994).

The Supreme Court has also addressed this timing issue, although not in cases involving redacted confessions. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000), is a habeas case where the principal issue concerned the effectiveness of counsel at the penalty phrase of a capital case. Justice Stevens writing for the majority of the Court on Parts I, III and IV of the opinion set out the specific issue relevant to us in Part III:

In this case, Williams contends that he was denied his constitutionally guaranteed right to the effective assistance of counsel when his trial lawyers failed to investigate and to present substantial mitigating evidence to the sentencing jury. The threshold question under AEDPA is whether Williams seeks to apply a rule of law that was clearly established at the time his state-court conviction became final.

529 U.S. at 390, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (emphasis added). This approach is consistent with the earlier portion of Justice Steven’s opinion which argues that, in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), Congress sought to codify the Supreme Court’s non-retroactivity rules from the line of cases following Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 379-82, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (Stevens, J., concurring).

However, the portion of Justice Stevens’s opinion which provides this reasoning (Part II) did not garner a majority of the Supreme Court. Instead, a majority of the Court followed the opinion of Justice O’Connor and took the position that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) had “only a slight connection to our Teague jurisprudence.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495. In the portion of Justice O’Connor’s opinion that spoke for the majority of the Supreme Court, she wrote.

Throughout this discussion the meaning of the phrase “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” has been put to the side. That statutory phrase refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.

Id. (emphasis added). In spite of taking a position which is inconsistent with Teague, Justice O’Connor went on to write for the Court that Teague jurisprudence concerning what constituted an old rule would control what was the clearly established law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The only caveat was that Supreme Court precedent could be the only source of the clearly established law. Id.

In spite of this initial lack of clarity, the Supreme Court in subsequent cases has consistently noted that, for purposes of applying 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), Supreme Court precedent must be evaluated as of the date the relevant state court adjudicated the petitioner’s claim. See Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 2147, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). In light of this consistent, more recent precedent and in light of Priester v. Vaughn, we conclude, for purposes of applying 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), that the state of Supreme Court precedent must be evaluated as of the date Greene’s claim was adjudicated by the Superior Court. Thus, we will not in our evaluation of this issue consider Gray v. Maryland as being part of the clearly established Supreme Court precedent that must be applied.

b. Application of the AEDPA Standard of Review

Consideration of Petitioner’s Confrontation Clause claim must begin with Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). In Bruton, George William Bruton was tried on a charge of armed postal robbery along with “one Evans.” Bruton, 391 U.S. at 124, 88 S.Ct. 1620. Prior to trial; Evans had made a statement to police in which he admitted that he and Bruton had committed the crime. Id. At trial, this confession was read to the jury but the trial judge instructed the jury that the it was to be considered against Evans only could not be used in any way against Bruton. Id. at 125, 88 S.Ct. 1620. The Supreme Court concluded that the limiting instruction given by the trial judge was insufficient to prevent the risk that the jury would nonetheless consider Evans’s confession as evidence against Bruton. In the view of the Court, the inability of Bruton to cross-examine Evans was deemed a violation of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. Id. at 126, 137, 88 S.Ct. 1620.

The Supreme Court next addressed this Confrontation Clause issue in the context of a co-defendant’s statement in Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200,107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987). There, Clarissa Marsh, Benjamin Williams and Kareem Martin were charged with assaulting Cynthia Knighton and murdering her four year old son, Koran, and her aunt, Ollie Scott. Id. at 202, 107 S.Ct. 1702. Marsh was tried together with Williams only because Martin was a fugitive at the time of trial. Id. Knighton testified about Marsh’s participation in the charged offenses. Id. As in Bruton, the confession of Williams, who did not testify, was read to the jury in redacted form. Id. at 203, 107 S.Ct. 1702. All references to Marsh were eliminated. Indeed, as redacted the confession indicated that only Williams and Martin participated in the charged offenses. Id. & n. 1, 107 S.Ct. 1702. Further, the jury was admonished not to consider Williams’s confession in any way against Marsh. Id. at 204, 107 S.Ct. 1702.

Unlike Bruton, however, Marsh did testify at trial. Id. She corroborated some of the details in Williams’s confession and in Knighton’s testimony. Id. She also testified, however, that she had no prior knowledge that Williams and Martin were armed, that she had not heard any conversation between them about anyone being harmed and that she certainly had not intended to rob or kill anyone. Id.

As a fundamental proposition, the Court articulated the principle that a witness whose testimony is introduced at trial is not considered to be a witness against the defendant (and hence not subject to the Confrontation Clause) if the jury is instructed to consider the testimony only against a co-defendant, id. at 206, 107 S.Ct. 1702. The Court noted that this rule is based upon the long held presumption that jurors follow the instructions they are given. Id. at 206-07, 107 S.Ct. 1702 (collecting cases). The Court then characterized Bruton, where the confession of a non-testifying co-defendant incriminated the defendant on its face to be a narrow exception to this presumption. Id. at 207, 107 S.Ct. 1702. The court accepted that in that limited circumstance the trial court’s cautionary instruction would not protect the defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights. Id.

In Marsh however, Williams’s redacted confession did not incriminate Marsh on its face. Indeed, it did not even mention Marsh. Id. at 208, 211, 107 S.Ct. 1702. Only when linked to other evidence admitted at trial and, in particular, Marsh’s own testimony could it be said to be incriminating. Id. The Court concluded that, in these circumstances, a limiting instruction would be sufficient to protect Marsh’s Confrontation Clause rights. Id. at 208-11, 107 S.Ct. 1702. The Court also expressed its view that, if a co-defendant’s confession facially incriminates the defendant, the Confrontation Clause rights of the defendant can be protected by redaction. Id. at 209,107 S.Ct. 1702.

Marsh was the last, relevant case in the Bruton line which the Supreme Court decided before the Superior Court adjudicated Greene’s claim. We are compelled to conclude, based upon Bruton and Marsh, that a co-defendant’s confession which does not, on its face, incriminate the non-confessing defendant combined with a limiting instruction telling the jury that they may use the confession only against the confessor will protect the Confrontation Clause rights of the non-confessing defendant. The question thus becomes, was it reasonable for the Superior Court to conclude that the trial court’s limiting instructions protected Greene’s Confrontation Clause rights. The resolution of this claim turns on whether the redacted confessions of Finney and Wom-ack facially incriminated Petitioner.

We note that neither confession incriminates Greene directly in that he is not referred to by name. To this extent, the redacted confessions are similar to the confession in Marsh. At the same time, they differ from those in Marsh as they mention several, unnamed participants and thus do not remove all implications of incriminating Petitioner. When combined with the other evidence in the case which described how many participants were involved and which corroborated and expanded upon some of the details in the redacted