Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02107/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02107-3/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)

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

Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the

Record (Doc. 32) and Respondent’s Response (Doc. 34). Petitioner

requests to have the record expanded to include the report containing

results of previously ordered mitochondrial DNA testing conducted on

hair evidence. Respondent objects to an expansion of the record

because Petitioner’s petition is barred by the one-year statute of

limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

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

States District Courts allows a record to be expanded. Expansion of

the record permits a district court to obtain additional information

necessary for determination of whether an evidentiary hearing is

necessary and to assist the court in ruling on the merits of a claim.

See Rule 8, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (stating that documents

submitted under Rule 7 must be reviewed by the judge when determining

whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted); see also McNair v.

Haley, 97 F.Supp.2d 1270, 1284-85 (M.D. Ala. 2000). In addition to

the above cited reasons, expansion of the record in the case sub

judice will assist the Court in determining the questions of whether

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 36 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled (if it is

determined that the statute of limitations has run) and whether

Petitioner is actually innocent and any procedural default should be

excused. See Flanders v. Graves, 299 F.3d 974, 978 (8 Cir. 2002) th

(“We do not hold that actual innocence can never be relevant to a

claim that the habeas statute of limitations should be equitably

tolled.”). 

After due consideration, Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. The

record will be expanded to include the three-page August 3, 2006

letter from Mitotyping Technologies, Case 2635, discussing the results

of mitochondrial DNA testing of two hairs (Doc. 32, Exhibit 1); the

one-page August 8, 2006 letter from Mitotyping Technologies, Case

2635, which discusses why the laboratory did not test a particular

hair/fiber (Doc 32, Exhibit 2); and a photograph of the slide

presented to Mitotyping Technologies and its packaging (Doc. 32,

Exhibit 3).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22 day of August 2006. nd

 /S/ Robert T. Dawson 

Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 36 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>