Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02107/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02107-0/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 for Leave to

Conduct Discovery, specifically to conduct mitochondrial DNA testing

on hairs introduced at trial as well as hair that was not introduced

(Doc. 15-1), as well as Petitioner’s Supplemental Motion for Discovery

requesting Van Buren Police Department to transfer hair evidence in

its custody to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory (Doc. 17).

Petitioner’s counsel asserts that the request will assist in the

development of facts to support Petitioner’s actual innocence claim.

Id. Respondent opposes the motion on the grounds that good cause to

conduct discovery has not been shown. (Doc. 19.) 

Petitioner specifically requests discovery in the form of

mitochondrial DNA testing of hairs introduced at trial as well as hair

that was not introduced; to include hairs recovered from: 1. A pair

of navy sweat pants (evidence number NSE7, trial Exhibit 3), 2. Gray

gloves (evidence number NSE8C, trial Exhibit 4), 3. Right black boot

of Rickey Newman (evidence number SWE4A, trial Exhibit 30), 4. The

vacuum sample (evidence number MCE1B, trial Exhibit 17), and 5. The

pubic hair recovered from Petitioner’s tent (evidence number NSE20,

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 21 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

not introduced at trial). 

Respondent contends that Petitioner has failed to show good cause

to conduct discovery as his actual innocence claim is not permitted

as it is free-standing and because his claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel and the state’s presentation of allegedly false

and misleading hair analysis testimony are both procedurally barred.

(Doc. 19.) However, a Petitioner may, in some circumstances, be

allowed to present procedurally defaulted claims, such as when he is

able to show cause and actual prejudice, or upon a showing of actual

innocence. Heffernan v. Norris, 48 F.3d 331, 333 (8 Cir. 1995). th

Actual innocence, as Petitioner is seeking evidence to show, is an

avenue for a district court to reach procedurally defaulted claims it

would ordinarily be unable to reach on the merits. See Herrera v.

Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404 (1993) (finding that “a claim of ‘actual

innocence’ is not itself a constitutional claim, but instead a gateway

through which a habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise

barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.”). Moreover,

we have yet to reach the issue of procedural default of any of

Petitioner’s claims or whether the actual innocence claim presented

by Petitioner is permitted. The evidence that may be discovered by

Petitioner upon receiving the results of the requested testing may

assist the Court in making these determinations. 

There are times in which prehearing discovery is essential. The

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 6 approve the use of discovery in

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 21 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Kermit Brooks Channel, II, a forensic scientist employed as the 1

Scientific Director of the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory in Little Rock,

Arkansas, states that mitochondrial DNA testing is not available at the

Arkansas State Crime Laboratory and that the Laboratory uses either the FBI 

or a private lab to conduct mitochondrial DNA testing. (Doc. 15-2.) 

3

appropriate cases before an evidentiary hearing has been granted. The

record in this case should be expanded due to the lack of such

information at the state court level. Discovery at this point will

allow facts to be presented to the Court to assist in the question of

whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted and on what claims the

Court will review on their merits. Furthermore, discovery should be

liberally granted in capital cases. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849,

860 (1994) (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment in part); accord

id. at 855 (majority opinion). Petitioner has made a sufficient

showing of good cause for discovery; specifically showing that if the

facts are fully developed, he may be able to demonstrate that he is

actually innocent of the crime, thus, ultimately entitled to relief.

See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997). Upon due consideration,

Petitioner’s motions are GRANTED.

It is ordered that the Van Buren Police Department will arrange

for the transfer all evidence sought to be tested currently in the

custody of the Van Buren Police Department be returned by the police

department to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory (Crime Lab). The

Crime Lab will be responsible for forwarding all evidence requested

to Mitotyping Technologies. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent 1

will be permitted to be present at the Crime Lab and will be permitted

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 21 Filed 03/07/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

to photograph and otherwise document the hairs that will be shipped

to Mitotyping Technologies. A commercial carrier will be used for the

shipping of the hairs to Mitotyping Technologies and from Mitotyping

Technologies back to the Crime Lab when the testing has been

completed. In addition to the hairs, the Crime Lab will send a copy

of all information in its possession regarding any previous hair

analysis performed as well as Petitioner’s and Marie Cholette’s blood

samples for DNA comparison purposes. Petitioner will be responsible

for the costs of the mitochondrial DNA testing and related incidental

expenses, such as shipping.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 day of March 2006. th

 /S/ Robert T. Dawson 

Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02107-RTD Document 21 Filed 03/07/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>