Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05238/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05238-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Ron Champion
Appellee
Jerry R. Rushing
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Coutc of Appeals 

,-,."th r:;r,..,it 

JERRY R. RUSHING, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. 

RON CHAMPION; and the 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF 

OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JUN G 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-5238 

(D.C. No. 88-C-1288-E) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner-appellant Jerry R. Rushing appeals prose from the 

denial of his 28 u.s.c. S 2254 habeas corpus petition. Petitioner 

was convicted of first degree murder of his wife in 1980 and 

sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed in 

Rushing v. State, 676 P.2d 842 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984). 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-5238 Document: 010110118820 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 1 
Petitioner exhausted his state remedies and the district court 

issued him a certificate of probable cause to advance this appeal. 

Petitioner sought federal habeas review in July 1987; the 

petition was dismissed six months later. Petitioner filed the 

instant action, his second§ 2254 petition, in September 1988. 

Petitioner presented affidavits by his two children that they 

witnessed someone else committing the murder. He claimed: (1) he 

was denied due process because this evidence was not presented at 

trial, and (2) the state district attorney violated Brady v. 

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by not disclosing this exculpatory 

evidence to the defense. 

The state moved to dismiss petitioner's second§ 2254 action 

as an abuse of the writ. See R. 9(b), Rules Governing§ 2254 

Cases in the United States District Courts. The district court, 

however, adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge that, 

because petitioner did not grasp the import of his children's 

allegations at the time of his first S 2254 petition, "there was 

no deliberate withholding or inexcusable neglect" giving rise to 

an abuse of the writ. IR. doc. 15 at 4; doc. 16. Without an 

evidentiary hearing, the district court subsequently determined 

that the prosecution did not know of the children's claim at the 

time of petitioner's trial; hence, no suppression of exculpatory 

evidence occurred. The district court further held that, even if 

the state knowingly had withheld the children's testimony, the 

evidence was not material under Brady to the question of 

defendant's guilt. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5238 Document: 010110118820 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 2 
"In a habeas corpus proceeding, 'a federal evidentiary 

hearing is required unless the state-court trier of fact has after 

a full hearing reliably found the relevant facts.'" Ford v. 

Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 410 (1986) (quoting Townsend v. Sain, 

372 U.S. 293, 312-13 (1963)). On the other hand, "a determination 

after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, made by a State 

court of competent jurisdiction ... , shall be presumed to be 

correct, and an evidentiary hearing not required." Id. (quoting 

28 u.s.c. S 2254(d)). Here, petitioner alleged in his complaint 

that the state prosecutors knowingly withheld exculpatory evidence 

from the defense. Although the district court appears to have 

found that the prosecution was unaware of the alleged exculpatory 

evidence, we are unsure of the record origin of this finding. To 

the extent that this point is dispositive of the Brady claim, the 

district court should on remand consider whether an evidentiary 

hearing is required. See Stano v. Dugger, 901 F.2d 898 (11th Cir. 

1990) (standards for granting evidentiary hearing for Brady 

claim). See also Aldrige v. Dugger, 925 F.2d 1320, 1325-26 (11th 

Cir. 1991) (result of trial would not have been different; Brady 

claim fails and no evidentiary hearing required); Delap v. Dugger, 

890 F.2d 285, 298-99 (11th Cir. 1989) (same), cert. denied, 110 S. 

Ct. 2268 (1990). We recognize that even assuming petitioner's 

allegations to be true, he still must state a valid Brady claim to 

be entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Townsend, 372 U.S. at 

312. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5238 Document: 010110118820 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 3 
The district court also determined that, even if the 

prosecution withheld evidence concerning the children's 

statements, such evidence was not material under Brady. The 

district court relied upon the Supreme Court's holding in Sumner 

v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 550 (1981), that factual findings by a 

state court are presumptively correct in federal habeas actions. 

Consequently, the district court adopted the holding of the 

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals that the jury's verdict would 

have remained the same had the eyewitness testimony been presented 

at trial. See Rushing v. State, 676 P.2d at 856. The district 

court's approach is not entirely consistent with our holding in 

United States v. Buchanan, 891 F.2d 1436 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. 

denied, 110 S. Ct. 1829 (1990), that "the materiality of withheld 

evidence under Brady and its possible effect on the verdict are 

mixed questions of fact and law reviewed de novo." Id. at 1440. 

Petitioner should be accorded a de novo review of the materiality 

of the allegedly withheld evidence, although the district court 

will rely upon state court factual findings concerning the 

underlying events. 

Notwithstanding the above concerns, we decline to resolve 

this case on the merits at this stage. As an essential 

preliminary matter, we would prefer that the abuse of the writ 

question be reconsidered by the district court in light of recent 

Supreme Court authority. The district court based its holding 

that petitioner had not abused the writ on the fact that he did 

not grasp the legal import of the allegedly withheld evidence at 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5238 Document: 010110118820 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 4 
the time of his first federal habeas action. Subsequently, the 

Supreme Court released its opinion in Mccleskey v. Zant, 111 s. 

Ct. 1454 (1991), holding that abuse of the writ questions are 

analyzed under the same cause and prejudice standard as used for 

state procedural defaults with an exception to the cause 

requirement in a narrow category of cases involving a fundamental 

miscarriage of justice. Id. at 1468-70. Because the Mccleskey 

holding alters the analysis utilized by the district court, we 

believe that court should be afforded the first opportunity to 

consider the effect of this supervening authority. If the 

district court determines that abuse of the writ is not present, 

then it should resolve the Brady claim consistent with this order 

and judgment. Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district 

court and REMAND for further consideration in light of Mccleskey. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-5238 Document: 010110118820 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 5