Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-07-04294/USCOURTS-ca6-07-04294-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Margaret Bagley
Appellee
Gregory Lott
Appellant

Document Text:

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 08a0283p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

GREGORY LOTT,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

MARGARET BAGLEY, Warden,

 Respondent-Appellee.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

N

Nos. 05-4336; 07-4294

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

Nos. 95-02642; 04-00822—Kathleen McDonald O’Malley, District Judge.

Argued: June 11, 2008

Decided and Filed: August 8, 2008 

Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; MERRITT and COLE, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Gregory W. Meyers, OFFICE OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbus, Ohio,

for Appellant. Sarah A. Hadacek, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus,

Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Gregory W. Meyers, Melissa J. Callais, Robert K. Lowe, OFFICE

OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Sarah A. Hadacek, Stephen

E. Maher, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, Michael L. Collyer,

ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. 

_________________

OPINION _________________

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. The present question before us in this habeas corpus, murder

case, in which Ohio has imposed the death penalty, is whether the trial and post-conviction evidence

would now convince a reasonable factfinder that Lott is innocent of the crime. We agree with

District Judge O’Malley that the new evidence of prosecutorial wrongdoing does not undermine the

finding of guilt, which means that Lott may not proceed with his otherwise procedurally defaulted

claim that the State violated his due process rights by failing to turn over certain “exculpatory”

information in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Hence, we affirm the judgment

for the State. 

1

 Case: 07-4294 Document: 00611541782 Filed: 08/08/2008 Page: 1
Nos. 05-4336; 07-4294 Lott v. Bagley Page 2

1

For an explanation of the “old school strategy of ‘deliberate bypass,’” see Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 433-40

(1963), overruled in part by Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977). 

We have written three previous opinions in this case during the last seven years. Lott v.

Coyle, 261 F.3d 594 (2001); In re: Gregory Lott, 366 F.3d 431 (2004); In re: Gregory Lott, 424 F.3d

446 (2005). The first opinion recited the gruesome facts and affirmed the denial of Lott’s habeas

corpus petition on all issues except Lott’s actual innocence, “gateway” claim brought under the legal

theory set out in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). According to Schlup, a petitioner may

advance a procedurally defaulted claim if he is able to show “that it is more likely than not that no

reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence.” Id. at 327. We did

not resolve the Schlup issue in our first opinion because we noted that “this issue may now be

pending in the state court and has not been fully briefed before us.” 261 F.3d 621. In an abundance

of caution, given that this is a death penalty case, we addressed this issue in our second opinion and

issued an “order authorizing the district court to consider [a] second [habeas] application for a

Brady, actual innocence, gateway claim.” 366 F.3d 431-34. In the third opinion, we resolved an

issue regarding the attorney-client privilege raised by Lott “in the midst of litigating his second

habeas corpus proceeding” concerning the actual innocence claim. 

The issue, as explained in earlier opinions, turns on the application of Schlup v. Delo and

§ 2244(b)(2):

A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section

2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless —

. . . .

(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously

through the exercise of due diligence; and

(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as

a whole, 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.

Lott concedes that his legal counsel knew of the facts constituting his Brady exculpatory

evidence claim by February of 1992. In fact, he admits that his “counsel intentionally committed

malpractice by deciding to deliberately bypass Ohio’s courts.” He explains: “Acting under the old

school strategy of ‘deliberate bypass,’ Baich [Lott’s prior counsel] hid this evidence from state

courts for fear that he would lose in what was perceived as a hostile forum, hoping instead to play

this winning hand in federal court.”1

 Petitioner’s Brief, Lott v. Bagley (filed May 5, 2008). It is

difficult to read these statements by Lott’s present counsel as anything other than an admission that

Lott’s previous post-conviction counsel failed to meet the “due diligence” requirement of § 2244.

Even if he were able to meet the due diligence requirement of § 2244, Lott has been unable

to advance facts that establish that it is more likely than not that he is actually innocent of the

aggravated murder of his aged victim. As a result, he may not advance his procedurally defaulted

claim that the State committed a Brady violation. In her thorough and comprehensive opinion of

September 28, 2007, District Judge O’Malley rejected Lott’s gateway actual innocence claim,

leaving no stone unturned in her analysis of the facts and the application of the law of procedural

default and actual innocence. We attach her findings and conclusions on this issue (consisting of

pages 28-40 of her opinion) as Exhibit 1 to this opinion and incorporate them by reference as our

reasons for rejecting Lott’s Schlup actual innocence claim and for affirming the judgment of the

 Case: 07-4294 Document: 00611541782 Filed: 08/08/2008 Page: 2
Nos. 05-4336; 07-4294 Lott v. Bagley Page 3

District Court. For the full opinion see Lott v. Bagley, No. 1:04-CV822, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

91762 (N. D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2007).

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court denying Lott’s petition for a writ of habeas

corpus is affirmed.

 Case: 07-4294 Document: 00611541782 Filed: 08/08/2008 Page: 3