Raposa v. Bissonnette, No. 07-2061 (1st Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-2061 ROBIN RAPOSA, Petitioner, Appellant, v. LYNN BISSONETTE, SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge] Before Boudin, Selya and Dyk,* Circuit Judges. Donald A. Harwood for petitioner. Scott A. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Bureau, with whom Martha Coakley, Attorney General, was on brief for respondent. September 4, 2008 * Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. Per Curiam. Petitioner Robin Raposa appeals from the district court's judgment denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Raposa's petition challenged her Massachusetts state court conviction for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the death of her husband, Robert Raposa. Although the district court denied relief, it granted a certificate of appealability on several of Raposa claims of asserted error: specifically, that the prosecutor's summation violated Raposa's due process rights, as did aspects of the prosecutor's cross- examination and the state court's subsequent admission of allegedly prejudicial evidence. The Commonwealth, in turn, argues that Raposa failed to exhaust her federal constitutional claims in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC"). In the alternative, the Commonwealth argues that the SJC's decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The district court found that Raposa had exhausted her federal claims below, but that there was no error in the SJC's decision warranting a grant of the writ. We have given Raposa's arguments careful consideration but in the end see no reason to differ with, or add to, either part of the district court's thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion. Affirmed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.