Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02107/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02107-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

This number reflects several exhibits that are counted twice to 1

include the proffered videotape and transcript of the videotaped statement.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

RICKEY DALE NEWMAN PETITIONER

v. CASE NO. 05-2107

LARRY NORRIS, Director,

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Renewed Motion for Evidentiary

Hearing (Doc. 79), Respondent’s Response (Doc. 80); Petitioner’s

Motion to Expand the Record (Doc. 84), Respondent’s Response (Doc.

93); Petitioner’s Renewed Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery (Doc.

86), and Petitioner’s Response (Doc. 92). 

I. Motion to Expand the Record (Doc. 84)

In support of his actual innocence claim, Petitioner has

requested to expand the record by adding 56 exhibits. Respondent 1

opposes any expansion as the evidence proffered by Petitioner is not

new evidence and thus cannot be used to support his actual innocence

claim. Respondent contends the exhibit were available and/or

discoverable at the time of trial and therefore cannot be used to

support an actual innocence claim. 

Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts states that a record may be expanded with

additional materials that relate to the petition. Additional

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 94 Filed 07/23/08 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

materials “include letters predating the filing of the petition,

documents, exhibits, and answers under oath to written interrogatories

propounded by the judge. Affidavits may also be submitted and

considered as part of the record.” Rule 7(b) of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court (2005); See

e.g., Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 308-10 & n.18 (1995) (approvingly

discussing petitioner’s request to “supplement the record” – and

thereby buttress his claims of innocence” in support of “manifest

miscarriage of justice” exception to successive petition defense – by

expanding record to include “affidavits from inmates [and others] who

stated that they had witnessed the event and that [petitioner] had not

been present”); Herrera v. Collings, 506 U.S. 390, 445 (1993)

(Blackmun, J., dissenting on other grounds) (“It is common to rely on

affidavits at the preliminary-consideration stage of a habeas

proceeding.”); Dobbs v. Zant, 506 U.S. 357, 358-59 (1993) (per curiam)

(court of appeals erred in failing to supplement record to include

previously missing transcript of closing argument at capital

sentencing hearing); Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 14 (1992)

(O’Connor, J., dissenting) (habeas corpus’ characteristic “functions”

include “introduction” through nonhearing procedures “of documentary

evidence” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2247)). 

Rule 7 makes easier the procedure where evidence can be

submitted, but also relaxes the rules of evidence by allowing a court

to admit almost all evidence that relates to the petitioner; was in

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 94 Filed 07/23/08 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

existence prior to the filing of the petition; or is tangible or real

evidence that was not created in anticipation of litigation, or is

comprised of or supported by a sworn statement; and is not already

part of the record of prior proceedings in the case. However, if the

resolution of the issues turns on the credibility of the proffered

evidence and the court questions the evidence’s credibility, the court

must conduct an evidentiary hearing where the rules of evidence are

observed. See Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 7 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

The proffered exhibits all pertain to the Petition. Those

exhibits that were in existence prior to the filing of the Petition,

affidavits/declarations, and the death certificates will be permitted

to become part of the record, to include what have been marked: 

Exhibit 1, Arkansas State Crime Laboratory Evidence Submission

Form evidencing the Van Buren Police Department’s submission for

analysis;

Exhibit 2, Arkansas State Crime Laboratory Report of Laboratory

Analysis, dated October 1, 2001, indicating semen was recovered

from items of evidence;

Exhibit 3, Arkansas State Crime Laboratory Evidence Submission

Form verifying the submission of evidence (semen samples) by

Edward Vollman for analysis;

Exhibit 4, Arkansas State Crime Laboratory Report of Laboratory

Analysis, dated February 5, 2002, documenting that semen samples

recovered from blankets excluded Petitioner as a potential

contributor of semen samples;

Exhibit 5, Declaration of Patricia Zajac confirming that the

source of the semen blankets excludes Petitioner;

Exhibit 6 and 6(a), Videotaped statement of Petitioner given to

Van Buren Police Department on February 15, 2001, and

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 94 Filed 07/23/08 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

transcript;

Exhibit 7 and 7(a), Videotaped statement of Petitioner given to

Van Buren Police Department on March 2, 2001, and transcript;

Exhibit 8 and 8(a), Videotaped statement of Petitioner given to

Van Buren Police Department on May 9, 2002, and transcript;

Exhibit 10, Written Statement by Marc McCune, Chief Deputy

Prosecuting Attorney, stating he will seek the death penalty in

Petitioner’s case;

Exhibit 11, Van Buren Police Department Incident Report, dated

February 15, 2001, documenting Marc McCune’s promise to seek the

death penalty;

Exhibit 12, Receipt from Sallisaw Inn and Suites, dated February

6 and a receipt from Motel 6, dated February 5, 2001;

Exhibit 13 and 13(a), Videotaped statement of John Evans given

to Van Buren Police Department on February 26, 2001, and

transcript;

Exhibit 14 and 14(a), Videotaped statement of Robert Hamilton

given to Van Buren Police Department on February 23, 2001, and

transcript;

Exhibit 15, Printout from the Social Security Death Index

document that a Robert D. Hamilton died on December 23, 2002;

Exhibit 16 and 16(a), Videotaped statement of Orieste Baker

given to Van Buren Police Department on February 17, 2001, and

transcript;

Exhibit 17 and 17(a), Videotaped statement of Orieste Baker

given to Van Buren Police Department on February 15, 2001, and

transcript;

Exhibit 18, Declaration of Orieste Baker, dated April 22, 2008;

Exhibit 19 and 19(a), Videotaped statement of Ronnie Kye given

to Van Buren Police Department on February 19, 2001, and

transcript;

Exhibit 20, Certificate of Death documenting the death of Ronald

Kye on June 7, 2002;

Exhibit 21, Handwritten statement by Vern Hames on February 15,

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 94 Filed 07/23/08 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

5

2001;

Exhibit 22, Certificate of Death documenting the death of Vernon

Hames on August 6, 2001;

Exhibit 23, Declaration of Bill Redden, a former employee and

resident of the Gospel Rescue Mission in Van Buren, Arkansas;

Exhibit 24, Envelope addressed to Marie Cholette post-marked

February 2, 2001, apparently containing two letters and two

$50.00 checks;

Exhibit 25, Declaration of Billie Newman, Petitioner’s adoptive

mother, dated September 14, 2004;

Exhibit 26, Times Record Newspaper Article, Mother Doesn’t Grasp

Confession, dated March 25, 2002;

Exhibit 27, Excerpt of Shamrock Liquor Surveillance Video;

Exhibit 28, Arkansas State Police Agent Notes Prepared by Agent

Hoffman on February 16, 2001;

Exhibit 29, Certificate of Death documenting the death of W.L.

Ross on December 21, 2006;

Exhibit 30, Videotape of the crime scene;

Exhibit 31, Declaration of Larry Turner, the Assistant Director

of the gospel Rescue Mission in Van Buren, Arkansas, dated April

29, 2008;

Exhibit 32 and 32(a), Videotape statement of Benny Billy given

to the Van Buren Police Department on February 15, 2001, and the

transcript;

Exhibit 33, Email communication from the Longview Police

Department to the Van Buren Police Department on February 19,

2001, providing the names and photographs of individuals who

used the nicknames of Psycho and Snake;

Exhibit 34, Death Certificate documenting the death of Larry

Otis (alleged to be Copperhead), on or about August 4, 2005;

Exhibit 35 and 35(a), Videotaped statement of Robert Hamilton

given to Van Buren Police Department on February 23, 2001, and

transcript;

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 94 Filed 07/23/08 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

6

Exhibit 36, Letter written by Marie Cholette to her boyfriend,

John Evans, regarding Copperhead’s wallet being stolen and she

being blamed by him for taking the wallet;

Exhibit 37, Salvation Army Shelter Agreement records signed by

Marie Cholette on January 29, 2001;

Exhibit 38, Letter written by John Evans to Marie Cholette,

dated February 4, 2001;

Exhibit 39, Letter from Van Buren Police Department Chief of

Police to FBI, dated February 22, 2001;

Exhibit 40, Letter from Thomas Knowles, Unit Chief for FBI

Violent Criminal Apprehension Program to U.S. Department of

Veterans Affairs, dated January 15, 2002;

Exhibit 41, Fort Smith Times Record Newspaper article, Crime

Called Lust Murder, dated September 19, 2004;

Exhibit 42, NCIC report of Petitioner’s criminal record;

Exhibit 43, Declaration of Ginger Thomas, Petitioner’s adoptive

sister, dated July 28, 2007; 

Exhibit 44, Declaration of Doreen Kines, Petitioner’s sister-inlaw, dated October 22, 2006;

Exhibit 45, Declaration of Zachary Newman, Petitioner’s nephew,

dated October 21, 2006;

Exhibit 46, Declaration of Eric Armstrong, Petitioner’s former

employer, dated September 14, 2004.

 We find the evidence with which Petitioner requests to supplement

the record should be included, with the exception of Exhibit 9, Report

of Allison D. Redlich, Ph.D., who states Petitioner’s confession

statements are false. In the case sub judice, we do not find an

expert opinion regarding false confessions should be submitted without

an evidentiary hearing to permit Respondent to test the expert’s

opinion through cross-examination and/or to present its own expert to

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 94 Filed 07/23/08 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

After Petitioner was found competent (although that competency 2

determination was based on miscalculations and other nonstandard practices of

the doctor testing Petitioner’s mental capacity, see Order 78.) he allowed his

standby counsel to represent him with the understanding that he did not want to

present any defense. Direct Appeal Tr., Vol. 3, p. 364. The trial court

specifically inquired of Petitioner his desire to introduce any defense, if any

existed, Petitioner responded that he did not. Id.

7

counter the proffered opinion. At this point in time, Petitioner has

not demonstrated that an evidentiary hearing is necessary. See

Discussion regarding evidentiary hearing below. 

Respondent’s contention that the evidence set out does not

constitute new evidence would be a valid argument in most habeas

cases. The current case contains issues of competency that make the

question of whether something is new evidence a difficult question.

We question whether evidence is truly discoverable if the defendant

forbids his attorney to present any form of defense, especially when

there are questions regarding the defendant’s competency both prior

to and during the capital trial. For those reasons, it is necessary

to view evidence that not only meets the requirements of new evidence,

but also evidence that could and/or should have been discovered if

Petitioner had allowed his trial counsel to defend him. In addition 2

to competency issues, the lack of evidence produced during the capital

trial also raises serious concerns of whether constitutional

safeguards were met. 

We conclude that concerns regarding competency and the lack of

evidence introduced at trial create a need for the record to be

expanded to include the above listed exhibits, except Exhibit 9.

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 94 Filed 07/23/08 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

8

Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record (Doc. 84) is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part. Additionally, we recognize the proffered

declarations are not formally sworn to before a third party, but, we

will allow them to be included in the record. Respondent will be

given fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to address any

credibility issues regarding the declarations. 

II. Renewed Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 79)

Petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing on claims contained

in his habeas Petition (Doc. 13). Respondent objects as Petitioner

has failed to meet the requirements for an evidentiary hearing set out

in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which provided that a federal district court:.

shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless

the applicant shows that –

(A) the claim relies on –

(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme

Court, that was previously unavailable; or

(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been

previously discovered through the exercise of due

diligence; and

(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient

to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have

found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(2). 

Petitioner’s claims do not rely on a new rule of constitutional

law, nor at this point, has there been an adequate showing that an

additional evidentiary hearing is necessary before the claims can be

reviewed. The expansion of the record puts before us evidence in

support of Petitioner’s actual innocence claim. Expansion of the

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 94 Filed 07/23/08 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

9

record is an alternative fact-development procedure that obviates the

need for an evidentiary hearing, at this time. Therefore,

Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his

claims is DENIED. 

III. Renewed Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery (Doc. 86)

Petitioner requests leave to conduct additional discovery.

Petitioner specifically requests a Court order for the production of

records regarding Petitioner and/or the murder of Marie Cholette from

the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Van Buren Police

Department. Additionally, Petitioner requests permission to take the

depositions of Lt. Brent Grill, Van Buren Police Department; Sgt.

Steve Weaver, Van Buren Police Department; and Agent Richard Hoffman,

Arkansas State Police.

Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts states that “[a] judge may, for good cause,

authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery.” Rule 6

warrants discovery “when[ever] it would help the court make a reliable

determination with respect to the petitioner’s claim.” Herrera v.

Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 444 (1993) (Blackmun, J., dissenting on other

grounds). Petitioner has successfully moved to expand the record to

include numerous exhibits in support of his actual innocence claim and

he has not shown that the items requested through discovery will shed

additional light on his actual innocence claim and assist this Court

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 94 Filed 07/23/08 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

10

in making a reliable determination on his actual innocence claim.

Upon due consideration, Petitioner’s Renewed Motion for Leave to

Conduct Discovery (Doc. 86) is DENIED.

IV. Conclusion

After due consideration, Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record

(Doc. 84) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Petitioner’s Renewed

Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 79) is DENIED, and

Petitioner’s Renewed Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery (Doc. 86)

is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23 day of July 2008. rd

 /S/ Robert T. Dawson 

Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 94 Filed 07/23/08 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>