Criminal: Evidence

Maurice Coleman v. Marcus Hardy, Warden, (Williams, J.), (Kanne, J., Rovner, J., Williams, J. on panel)

The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals remanded appellant’s case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing as to his innocence, finding that the development of the new evidence presented, reviewed collectively with the total information available, could support appellant’s claim of procedural actual innocence in connection with appellant’s habeas petition and ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Appellant was convicted of the murder and armed robbery of Terrell Jackson, based on two eyewitness testimonies. Appellant sought habeas corpus relief from his sentence, claiming that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel and challenging the validity of his convictions. He requested an evidentiary hearing to allow the court to make factual findings and credibility determinations. The district court denied appellant’s habeas petition and request for hearing.

The 7th Circuit reviews the district court’s denial of a habeas petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion. Appellant raised a procedural claim of innocence on his contention that the ineffectiveness of his counsel “denied him the full panoply of protections afforded to criminal defendants by the constitution.” Appellant argued that the court could reach the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because a fundamental miscarriage of justice occurred, as he said he was innocent of the crime. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 315 (1995).

An evidentiary hearing should be granted if it could enable a habeas applicant to prove his petition’s factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle him to federal habeas relief. Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 474 (2007). Here, development of the new evidence, reviewed in concert with the total information available, could support his claim of procedural actual innocence. The 7^th Circuit found that an evidentiary hearing was warranted to allow the district court a chance to evaluate the totality of this evidence.

The new evidence constituted the affidavits of Joseph Barnes (appellant’s co-defendant at trial) and James Rhodes (Barnes’s trial attorney). Barnes asserted that his co-defendant should have been Roy Wright, and that the murder was related to a drug deal, set up by Wright and another middleman, that went bad.

While the district court should accord a presumption of correctness to the state court’s credibility determination, it could nonetheless conclude that the determination was unreasonable. Barnes’s statements proclaiming appellant’s innocence were made to his attorney, a disinterested third party, and these contentions remained consistent since the trial. An evidentiary hearing would allow the district court to evaluate the reliability of Barnes’s statements together with the additional evidence developed at the hearing.

An evidentiary hearing would allow further consideration of eyewitness Adamson’s account and possible ulterior explanations for the crime. Adamson admitted that Jackson was involved in drugs, and that the robbers were looking for the drug money. The jurors, however, heard no testimony about Jackson’s involvement with drug dealing and were not given a motive for the crime. Also, Wright’s statements to the police regarding his involvement in the crime dovetailed with Barnes’s statements in key ways- both said there was a drug deal in progress that went bad. Even though Wright was the first person to target appellant as a possible suspect, he was not called as a witness. Wright was involved with Thomas, Jackson’s stepdaughter and the other eyewitness. Based on Thomas’s inconsistent testimony, she may have been protecting Wright.

An evidentiary hearing would allow evaluation of appellant’s alibi witnesses – appellant’s girlfriend and her mother. The Cades’ affidavits stated that both were able to provide appellant with an alibi for the time of the murder. Also,  Jackson’s neighbors, who observed the perpetrator’s activities outside Jackson’s home prior to the murder, could also testify. David Wilkins told defense lawyers that he could affirmatively state that appellant was not one of the two men he observed.  A hearing would allow appellant’s attorney the opportunity to explain his strategy in not calling the Cades or the Wilkinses, and in not verbalizing why his client needed a severance. These are critical factors in evaluating appellant’s claim of innocence.

An evidentiary hearing is warranted if the facts underlying appellant’s claim could establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(B). The new evidence of Barnes’s and Rhodes’s affidavits and the testimony of the Wilkinses, the Cades, and Adamson fulfilled this standard.

Remanded for evidentiary hearing.

Maurice Coleman v. Marcus Hardy, Warden, (Williams, J.), (Kanne, J., Rovner, J., Williams, J. on panel), United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 08-3537, November 19, 2010, USDC for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, (St. Eve), No. 1:99-cv-02635, VLW 010-x-xxx, 18 pp.  Date of lower court decision, and names of lawyers not available.

Click here for the opinion.