2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
5-7-2008 

# T ice v . W i l son P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-2502

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Tic e v . W i l s on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1260. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1260NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_________ N o. 06- 2502

_________ J AM ES ROBER T TI CE, A ppel l ant

v. HA RRY E. W I LSON , W a r d e n ; THE D I STRI CT A TTOR NEY OF TH E CO UNT Y OF E RI E , P E NNS YL VANI A; T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE

C O M M O N W E A L T H O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D. C. No. 0 3
- c v - 0 0 0 0 9 E) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on J anuary18, 2008
B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, B A R R Y and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: M ay7, 2008)
O P I N I O N2

R O T H , C i rcui t Judge: J ames Rober tT i ce a ppeal s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’s or derdi s m i s s i ng i n par thi s pet i t i on f o ra wr i to f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . We wi l l a f f i r m th e o r d e r b e c a u s e T i c e h a s f a i l e d t o s h o w a
m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce s uffi ci entt o over come t he pr ocedur al defa ul tof hi s cl ai m forr el i ef. I . B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory A ta benc h t r i al i n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas of E r i e C ount y , Penns y l vani a, T i ce w as convi ct ed of tw o s et s of char ges , one r el at ed t o act s of m ol es t at i on occurr i ng betw een M ay 13 and A ugus t8, 1997 ( cas e number 3207) , and the s econd t o s uch act s o cc u rri ng fr om A ugus t9 t o 11, 1997 ( cas e num ber 3206)
. T he dat es i n ques t i on r efl ecti ns t ance s i n w hi ch Ti c e was a l l e g e d t o h a v e c o mmi t t e d s e x u a l a c t s wi t h h i s n i e c e whe n s t a y i n g a th i s s i s t er K a re n ’s h o u se w h ile h e w a s o n a p p ro v e d lea v e f ro m H e rm itag e H o u se , the ju v e n ile f a c ili ty
w h e re h e re s id e d a t th e tim e . O f re leva n ce t o thi s appea l , i n t he pr es enthabea s pet i t i on, T i ce r ai s es i neff ect i ve
as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s , w hi ch w er e not pr es ent ed t o t he s t at e court s . T i ce a r gues t hat hi s t r i al couns el w as ineffect i ve i n par tforfai l i ng t o obt ai n t he r ecor ds fr om H erm i t age H ous e conc erni n g the d at es on w hi ch Ti ce w as r el eas ed on home vi s i t s . T hes e r ecor ds i ndi cat e thatT i ce s pent t he w eeke nd of A ugus t 9- 11, 1997, at hi s s i s t erJ udy ’ s hous e, and the
w eeke n d s o f

J u n e 1 3
- 1 5 , 1 9 9 7 , a n d J u l y2 5
- 2 7 , 1 9 9 7 , a tKar e n ’ s . As s u c h , t h e Hermi t age H ous e r ecor ds s ugges t ed thatT i ce c oul d nothave c om m i t t ed the cr i m es char ged i n cas e 3206T he D i stri ctC ou rtactuall yheld tw o ev i den t i aryheari ng s on T i ce’s cl ai m s. T he F i rs t 1 R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n re c o m m e n d e d th a t T ice ’s h a b e a s p e tit io n b e d e n ied a s to b o th char ges . I n hi s s ubs equentobj ect i ons , T i ce i ncl uded af fi davi t s fr om bot h of hi s s i s t er s t hat bol s t er ed the r el i abi l i t yof the H erm i t age H o u se rec or ds
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen hel d a s econd e vi dent i ary h ea ri n g , aft erw hi ch the M agi s t r at e J udge i s s ued a Sec ond R epor tand R ecomm endat i on. In so d o in g , the D istric t C o u rt re jec ted T ice ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e tes tim o n yo f a p e d iatric 2 u ro lo g is t, D r. Ju stin e S c h o b e r, co n c e rn in g th e a g e o f th e v a rio u s in

ju rie s to th e v ictim s uppor t ed hi s i nnocenc e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatD r . Schober ’ s t es t i m onyaboutt he age of t hos e i nj ur i es w as “l es s t han pr eci s e” a nd t hat , beca us e D r . Schobert es t i fi ed thatone i nj ur y was u n d a t e d a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Hermi t a g e Hou s e r e c o r d s , Ti c e h a d b e e n a tt he vi ct i m ’ s hous e i n J une and J ul y , an as s aul tbyT i ce a s char ged i n cas e 3207 w as not pr ecl uded. T he D i s t r i ct C our tacc or di ngl yr ej ect ed Ti ce’ s cl ai m t hatD r . Schober ’ s t es t i m ony es t abl i s hed thats om eone othert han Ti ce ha d comm i t t ed t he cr i m es and not ed t hatt he fa ct th a t s o m e o n e o th e r t h a n T ic e c o u ld h a v e a s s a u lte d th e v ic tim d id n o t e x o n e ra te h im
. 3 beca us e he w as notatK ar en’ s on t he w eeke nd of A ugus t9- 11, 1997, w hen the mol es t at i on
s uppos edl yoccurr ed. Fol l ow i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng, atw hi ch both of T ice’s si s t er s t es t i fi ed, and the p rep ara tio n o f a R ep o rtan d R ec o m m en d ati o n b ythe M ag istrate Ju d g e, th e D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed Ti ce’ s habea s pet i t i on w i t h r es pectt o cas e 3206 butdeni ed i tas t o cas e 3207. T he 1 D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatT i ce’ s cl ai m s forr el i ef ha d been pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed bec aus e he had notbr oughtt hos e claim s b efor e the s t at e court . T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen cons i der ed
w hether fai l ur e t o r evi ew T i ce’ s cl ai m s w oul d r es ul ti n a funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce,
su ch that h is cl aim s, alt h o u g h d ef au lt ed , co u ld n o n ethe less b e rev iew ed
. T h e D istri ct C o u rt concl uded t hat no s uch m i s carr i age of j us t i ce w oul d r es ul tw i t h r es pectt o T i ce’ s cl ai m for
r el i ef f r om hi s convi ct i on i n cas e 3207 bec ause the H erm i t age H ous e r ecor ds di d not suffici entl yest abli sh T i ce’s i nn ocen ce w i t h respectt o those charges. 2T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o r ej ect ed T i ce’ s as s er t i on thathe w as ent i t l ed t o r el i ef be caus e the

H erm i t age H ous e r ecor ds coul d have be en us ed to im p ea ch t he vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m ony . T he vi ct i m t es t i fi ed thatT i ce ha d as s aul t ed herov er a p eri od of ei ght een mont hs , w her eas t he rec o rds in d icate tha t he c o u ld no t h av e assa u lt ed h er o v er su ch a p eriod
. T h e D istri ct C o u rt fo u n d that this i n fo rm ati o n w as “ n o t suf ficien tl yat od d s w ith the e leve n -y ea r-old v ict im ’s t es t i m onyto o fferanyr eal i m peac hm entval ue. ” The D i s t r i ctC our tal s o concl uded that es t abl i s hi ng t he i nacc ur acy of t he vi ct i m ’ s m emory r egar di ng t he t i m e fr ame of t he al l eged abus e di d notm eett he “f undament al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce” s t andar d. 4 T i ce t i m el yappea l ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der
. W e gr ant ed a c er t i fi cat e of ap p ea labili ty o n the issue o f w h ethe r T ice h as e stab li sh ed a m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce w ith reg ard to c a se n u m b e r 3 2 0 7 (th e c h a rg e s re late d to M a y1 3 th ro u g h A u g u s t 8 , 1 9 9 7 ) su f f icie n t to
o v e r c o me t h e p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u l to f h i s i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s c l a i m. I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew W e have j ur i s di ct i on o v er T i ce’ s t i m el yappea l under28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1291 and 2253. W e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew o v e r th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n o f th e p ro c e d u ra l d e f

a u lt is s u e . H ul lv. K yl er , 1 9 0 F
. 3 d 8 8 , 9 7 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ). T he cl ai m s r ai s ed byT i ce i n hi s habea s pet i t i on t hat ar e of r el evanc e t o t he i s s ue on
a p p e a l w e re p ro c e d u ra llyd e f a u lted
. A f

e d e ra l co u rt g e n e ra llyw ill n o t re v iew a p ro c e d u ra lly d e f a u lte d c o n s titu tio n a l c la im ra is e d in a p e titio n f o r a w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . H

ubbar dv. P i nchak , 3 7 8 F .3 d 3 3 3 , 3 3 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e re is a n e x c e p tio n to th is
ru le, h o w e v e r, w h e re th e p e tit io n e r “ c a n sh o w c a u se a n d p re ju d ice f o r th e p ro c e d u ra l d e f

a u lt
o r t h a t a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e w ill o c c u r a b s e n t r e v ie w . A n a lle g a tio n o f ‘a c tu a l in n o c e n c e ,’5

i f cr edi bl e i s one s uch ‘ m i s carr i age of j us t i ce’ t hatenabl es cour t s t o heart he m eri t s of the habea s cl ai m s . ” I

d. (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). I n Sc h lu p v . D e lo , the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t, t o o v e r c o m e a p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt bas ed on a c l ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e, a habe as pet i t i onerm us ts how t hat“a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol a t i on ha s pr ob a bl y r e s ul t e d i n t he c on vi c t i on of on e w ho i s a c tua l l y i nn oc e nt . ” 51 3 U. S. 2 9 8 , 3 2 7 (1 9 9 5 ). T h e p e tit io n e r m u st sh o w th a t, in lig h t o f n e w e v id e n c e o f in n o c e n c e , “it i s m or e l i kel yt han nott hatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have c onvi ct ed hi m . ” Id

. T y i ng t he
m isc a rria g e o f

ju stic e e x c e p tio n to th e p e tit io n e r’s in n o c e n c e e n su re s th a t th e e x c e p tio n w ill

“ b e a p p lie d in th e e x tr a o rd in a ry c a s e ” a n d “ e x te n d re lie f to th o s e w h o [ a re ] t ru ly d e s e rv in g .” I d. at321. II I. A n a ly sis W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hat , w i t h r es pectt o cas e number 3 2 0 7 , T ice ha s f a iled to sh o w th a t, i n lig h t o f th e n e w e v id e n c e , it is m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t n o re a so n a b le ju ro r w o u ld h a v e c o n v ic te d h im o f th e o f f e n s e s c h a rg e d
. I n cas e number3207, T i ce w as char ged r egar di ng ac ts o ccur r i ng betw een M ayand A ugus t1997. T he new evi dence ( i n par t i cul ar t he H erm i t age H ous e r epor t s ) i ndi cat es t hat T i ce w as o n ly att he vi ct i m ’ s hom e on the w eeke nds of J une 13- 15, 1997, and J ul y25- 27, 1 9 9 7
. T his evidence, i n v i ew of the add i t i on al evidence pres ented att ri al , do es not es t abli sh
a lik e lih o o d th a t n o re a so n a b le ju ro r w o u ld h a v e c o n v icte d T ice o f th e o f f e n se s c h a rg e d in6

cas e number3207. T he dat es on w hi ch Ti ce s t ay ed att he vi ct i m ’ s hom e, as s how n bythe
new evi dence , s t i l l fal l w i t hi n t he t i m e fr ame i n w hi ch t he char ged act i vi t i es occurr ed. T he vi ct i m her s el f t es t i fi ed that T i ce had ass aul t ed her
. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatt he fac t t hat T i ce had not vi s i t ed her as oft en as s he s t at ed i n her t es t i m ony w oul d have been of li tt le i m p ea ch m en t valu e, g iven that the ju ryw as w ell aw are sh e w as a n elev en -y ea r-old g ir l te s tif y in g a s to e v e n ts th a t h a d o c c u rr e d a b o u t tw o y e a rs e a rl ie r. N or does t h e n e w e v i d e n c e r e n d e r Dr
. Sc h o b e r ’ s t e s t i mon y a s t o t h e d a t e s of t he vi ct i m ’ s i nj ur i es s uppor t i ve of T i ce’ s i nnocenc e. A t t r i al , D r . Schobert es t i fi ed that , dur i ng herSept ember1997 exami nat i on of the vi ct i m , s he i dent i fi ed thr ee i nj ur i es , one of w hi ch
w as “pr obabl yol der t han s i x m ont hs , ” one t hat w as “under s eventy - t w o hour s . . . ora fe w
w eeks ol d, ” and a not hert hatcoul d notbe d at ed. T hi s t es t i m onydoes not , even i n l i ghtof t he H erm i t age H ous e r ecor ds , es t abl i s h t hat no r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d l i kel yhave c onvi ct ed T i ce. D r . Schober ’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he age of the i njuri es w as admi t t edl yand under s t andabl yi m pr eci s e. T hi s t es t i m onyi s noti ncons i s t entw i t h the n ew evi dence
r egar di ng w hat dat es T i ce w as at t he vi ct i m ’ s hom e and t her efor e coul d have comm i t t ed the
cr i m es char ged, as t es t i fi ed t o byt he vi ct i m her s el f. T i ce ha s nots how n t hati ti s m or e l i kel y t han not t hat no r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have convi ct ed hi m even i n l i ghtof the new evi dence
. A s s uch, he fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h hi s actual i nnocenc e forp urpos es of the funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce s t andar d, and w e ca nnot7

over l ook hi s pr ocedur al defa ul tand r eac h t he mer i t s of hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of j us t i ce
c l a i m. I V . C oncl usi on F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth a b o v e , w e w ill af

f i rm th e o rd e r o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .