NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0677n.06 No. 07-4537 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT JAME S CH AV I S- TU CK ER, Petitioner,

v. STUART HUDSON, Warde n Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

B e fo re : KE I TH , G I B B ON S, a nd KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. DAMON J. KEITH, Circuit Judge. Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla nt Ja me s Ch a vis -T uc ke r ( “ Cha vis

Tucke r” or

“def endant” ) appe als from the district c ourt’s denia l of his petition for a writ of habe as corpus. Chavis-Tuc ker w as convicted by an Ohio jury

of ag g ravated murder

with a fire arm specific ation and senten ce d to 23 y ear s to life in prison. His conviction was af firmed on dire ct appea l. Chavis-T u ck er al s o filed a se ries of unsuc cessf ul state post-conviction motions, two of which conta ined var ious affidavits Chavis-Tucker a lleg ed demonstrated his a ctual innoce nce. A fter the se mot ion s w e re de nie d in state c ourt , Cha vis -T uc ke r fi le d a

ha be a s p e tit ion

purs ua nt t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 2254 in the United S tates District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, ra ising five g rounds for relief

. The district c ourt dismiss ed the habea s petition a s untimely and found t h at C h av i s -Tucke r failed to de monstrate ac tual innocenc e to justify equitable tolling of

his untim ely

petition or review of h is p r o c e d

u r a ll y d e f a u lt e d c la im s . Ch a v is

- T u c k e r

a p p e a le d , an d

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c e rti f

ie d the issue befor e this Court: whether Chavis-T ucker established a g atewa

y actua l innocence claim so asNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 2

This Court presumes the state c ourt’s fa ctual finding s are corr ect unless Chavis-Tu ck er

1 rebuts this presumption by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) (1). to justi fy equitable tolling of the s tatute of limit ations g overning his habea s petition or consideration of any of his underlying pr ocedur ally defa ult ed cl ai m s . For

the following rea sons, we af firm the district court’s de cision to dismi ss Chavis-Tucker ’s untimely habea s petition and to de ny revie w of his procedur ally

defa ulted claims for f

ailure to de monstrate ac tual innocenc e. I. The Court of Appe als of Ohio set for th the fac ts of this case: 1 I n the l ate eve nin g of

Ap ri l 10 or

the e arl y mor nin g of Ap ri l 11 , 1 99 2, Da

rr e ll Str ic kla nd wa s o n th e da

nc e fl oo r o f Clu

b Al e xan de r’ s wh e n d e fe nd ant e lbo we d h im; Strickland . . . asked de fenda nt if he had a problem. De fenda nt responded by

spitti ng at Strickland, and Strickland spit back at defe ndant. Def endant then hit Strickland and a f ight e nsued. Strickland testified de fenda nt appea red to be intox icated at the time of the fig ht. . . . A number of secur ity g uards at Club Alex ander ’s broke up the fig ht and escorted defenda nt and S trickland to the front of t he nightclub. Defenda nt and Str i ck l an d started f

ightingag ain at the f

ront of the ba

r, and the two had to be separ ated onc e more . At that time, a secur ity g uard took a picture of def endant . . . to alert a ny new e mploy ee who was not pr esent that night that de fenda nt was bar

red fr om r e tur

nin g to C lub Al e xan de r’ s. Severa l security

g uards, includingDoyle B anks, esc orted d ef endant out of Club Alexander’s. As Ba

nks watche d defe ndant walk to his ca r, he not only

saw de fenda

nt shove anothe r customer

out of his way , but also observe d defe ndant bec ome ang ry on seeinga sticker

had been place d on his windshield. Noting def endant a ppear ed to b e int oxic a te d at th e tim e , B ank s watc he d de fe nd ant, and a wo man wh o w a s w ith de fe nd ant, g e t in to a

n a uto mob ile and

le a ve the pa

rk ing lot . Alth ou g h B ank s c ou ld not see at f

ir s t w h o w a s dr iv in g , h e n o ti c e d th a t a s th e tw o le f

t t h e p ar k in g lo t, the wo m an wa s dri v i n g. After defe ndant had dep arte d, sever al sec urity g uards, includingErnest Penn, escor ted Strickland out of t h e n ightc lub. Penn stopped for a short time to talk to a woman he a

ppear ed to kno w. Strickland asked Penn if he knew wher e def

endant wa s, and Pe nn re pli e d th a t he did

no t. Pe nn the n s ta

te d r a the r q

uic kly , “ [t]he re he is, g et down.” . . . Penn pushed S trickland down. Strickland hear d two g unshots. He then saw a

n automobile as it was “sc ree ching off.”

. . . S t ri ck land was unde r theNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 3

A bullet hole found in the roof of the Dodg e Dy

nasty was fla ng ed inwar d, showing the shot 2 came from outside the c ar. imp re ssi on

the sh ots c a me fr om t

he c ar, sin c e “ no oth e r p e rs on c a me fo rw ard

wi th a g un and no one w as runningfrom the sc ene w ith a g un.” Steve Alexander, a

secur ity supervisor at Club Alex and er ’s, testified he w itnessed the fig ht be tween defe ndant and Strickland on the nig ht in question. . . . After Penn and two other

secur ity g uards e scorted Strickland out of t he nig htclub, Alexander’s supervisor, William Fowlkes, sent him out to tell the gua rds to come back inside . . . . Once outside, Alexander noticed a car had pulled up; it had orang e parkingstickers o nth e w in d s h ie ld

. A le xan d e r w a s f a mi li ar w it h th e s ti c k e r s , s in c e h e h a d p lace d su c h s tic ke rs on se ve ra l c ars that nig ht to te ll the dr ive rs the y ha d p ark e d im

pr op e rl y

. . . . O n e o f t h e c ar s o n w h i c h h e h a d p l a c e d a p ar k i n g s t i c k e r w a s a

D o d g e D yn a s t y, license ta g number B OW 865.

*** Penn died as a

result of a

g unshot wound to his rig ht ey e. A .380 caliber bullet was later r ecove red f

rom his body . A Dodg e Dy nasty , with a l icense tag number B OW 86 5 was fou nd on or

ne ar a mot e l pa rk ing lot tw o o r t hr e e da y s a ft e r t he inc ide nt. I ns ide the c ar, the po lic e fo un d ( 1) a uti lity pa y me nt e nv e lop e wi th a

re tur n a dd re ss to “Marie Chavis,” (2) a

temporar y permit and drive r’s license a pplication for “ J ay Tu c ke r , ” ( 3 ) a

b o x o f

. 3 8 0 c a l i b e r

a u t o m a t i c a m m u n i t i o n , w i t h t h e l e t t e r i n g “ R -P ” and “380 a

uto” on it, ( 4) two g old or bronze .380 ca liber shell ca sings, a nd (5) one spent .380 ca liber round. Ex pert examination of the two shell casing s and one spe nt round re veale d the two sh el l ca s i n gs matched a shell casingfound nea

r a blue Merc ury automobile at the sce ne of the shooting, a nd the one spe nt round was f ired from the same g un that fired the bullet rec overe d from Penn.

*** Neither the spent bullet found inside the Dodg e Dy nasty wh i ch m atched the bullet rec overe d from Penn, nor [ a] b u l l et hole in the roof of the Dodg e Dy

nasty , nor the bullet marking s on the inside compel a r easona ble jury to co n cl u de the f

atal shot 2 came from outside t he Dodge Dy nasty ; the j ury rea sonably

could have conclude d that e vid e nc e aro se fr om d if

fe re nt o c c a sio ns . Sta te v . Ch av is , No. 96APA04-508, 1996 WL737583, at *3-5 (O hio Ct. App. Dec. 26, 1996). On F e br ua ry 23, 1 99 5, Cha

vis -T uc ke r w a s in dic te d o n o ne c ount o f a g g ra vate d mu rd e r i n viola t i o n o f Ohi o Rev. Code § 2903.01(A) with a fire arm spec ification under Ohio Rev. Code §No. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 4 2 9 4 1

. 1 4 1 , and one c ount of having a we apon under disability

in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13 with a prior of

fense of violence specific atio n u n d er Oh io Rev. Code § 2941.143. The char g es in the indictment arose from the dr ive-by shooting de ath of Er

nest Penn (“Penn” ). A jury convicted Chavis-Tucke r of a g g ravated murder and the a ccompa

ny ing f irea rm specif ication. On Marc h 11, 1996, Chavis-Tucke r wa s sentence d to serve twenty (20) y ear s to life for his ag g ravated murder c onviction w it

h th r e e ( 3 ) additional y ear s of ac tual incar cer ation for the f irea rm specif ication. The Ohio a

ppellate c ourt aff

irmed C havis-Tuc ker’ s conviction and sentence for a g g ravated murder

and the Oh io S up re me Court de nie d h im l e a ve to a

pp e a l. On Aug ust 11, 1997, Chavis-Tucke r filed an application to reope n his direct appe al pursuant to O hio Ct. Ap p. R. 2 6( B ). On No ve mbe r 6 , 1 997, th e Ohi o Co ur t of Ap pe a ls d e nie d Ch a vis

Tucke r’s a

pplication as untimely , finding that he fa iled to show g ood cause under A pp. R. 26(B) for his late application. Chavis-Tucker did not appeal this dec ision. A. Mot ion f

or P ost-Conviction Relief On Marc h 3, 1997, while his dire ct appea l w as still pending, Chavis-Tuc ker f iled a petition fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f i n St a te c ourt purs ua nt t o O hio Rev. Co de § 29 53 .2 1. Atta c he d to his motion were a ffidavits fr om Christin Dion Wade, Tonee Andre ws, Phy llis L eindsey , Terr i Tucker , and Charme lle Macklin. 1. Christ in Dion W

ade, Tonee A ndrews, Phyllis Leindsey, Terri Tucker, and Charmelle Ma c k lin Christin Dion W ade ( “Dion Wade” ) states in his aff idavit, dated Febr

uary 24, 1997, that he

wa s in the pa rk inglot of Clu b A le xan de r’ s o n Apr il 1 1, 19 92 aro un d 1 2:3 0 a. m., wh e n h e saw D oyleNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 5 Ba nks (“B anks”) walk Chavis-Tuc ker a nd a wo m an , u n known to him, to a blue car and then of

f somewher e else in the parking lot. Chavis-Tuc ker the n drove his ca r direc tly to the front of the club. As Chavis-Tucke r proc eede d to ge t out of his car, D ion Wade hear d a man shout “he y ,” and tur ned to see B anks shooting at Chavis-Tucker . Chavis-Tucke r immediately g ot back into the car a

nd beg an shooting out of the dr iver’s side ba ck window at Ba nks. Ba nks jumped onto the hood of a c ar. A s Ba nks continued to shoot in the direc tion of Chavis-Tucke r, Dion Wade saw another secur ity g uard, who was c oming out of the club, fa ll to the gr ound. After being told Chavis-Tuc ker was on trial for the murder

of the sec urity

g uard, D ion Wade went to the cour thouse during Ch av i s -Tucker’s tria l and told defe nse counse l that he had se en this incident and would testify “that James Tucke r did not shoot the secur ity

g uard w ho was killed t hat ni g ht

. . . .” Def ense counsel neither

called D ion Wade

as a w itness, nor interviewe d him any further

. Tonee Andre ws (“A ndrew s”) sig ned an a ffidavit, date d Fe bruar y 2 4 , 1 9 9 7 , in which she states that at the time of the murder, she was Dion Wade’ s g irlfriend a nd was wa iting for

him in the parkinglot of Club Alex ander ’s. While she was wa iting, she sa w a blue car pull up to the front of the club, stop and pa

rk. As the man i n the car bega n to exi t his vehicle, Andre ws hea rd g unshots and saw the ma

n in the blue car re -ente r the ve hicle and be g in to shoot out of his driver’ s side window at another man in the parking lot. The man in the parking lot c limbed onto the hood of a par ked ca r and continued to shoot. The man in the blue car drove a way , while the other

man cha sed af

ter the

car and continued to shoot. Afte r hea ring th at C h av i s -T u cker

was on trial f

or the murde r of the

secur ity g uard, a ffiant states that she we nt to the courthouse a nd told Chavis-Tucker ’s counse l thatNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 6

Pankey

is refe rre d to as both “Celeste” and “Ce lestine” throug hout the rec ord. 3 she was willing to te stify that there was more than one pe rson shooting the night of the murder . She alleg es that def

ense c ounsel did not call her a s a witness nor inter view her any further

. Terr i Tucker , Chavis-Tucke r’s wife , signe d an af fidavit, da te d F e b r uary 24, 1997, stating that sh e wa s in

the c ourt ro om o n Febru ary

26 , 1 99 6 a

nd he ard Di on Wad e and

An dr e ws te ll Ch a vis

Tu c ke r’ s atto rn e y

that th e y we re a t th e c lub the nig ht o f t he mur de r a

nd wo uld te sti fy that Ch a vis

Tucke r did not kill P enn and that the murdere r wa s the other man shooting in the parking lot that night. Char

melle Mac klin (“Mac klin”), Chavis-Tuc ker’ s mother, submitted an af fi davit, dated Fe bruar y 24, 1997, alleg ing the same. Phy llis L eindsey

(“L eindsey”) state s in her af fidavit, dated F ebrua

ry 25, 1997, that she wa s in her c ar, which was fa cing the main par king lot of Club Alexander’ s, on April 11, 1992 at ar ound 12:30 a.m., when she saw a car drive to the fr ont of the club. She watched a man attempt to ge t out of the c ar, a

nd then saw a m an in the parkinglot beg in to shoot at the man in the car . The two exchang ed fire . The man w ho shot first got onto the hood of a ca r and b ega n s h o o t i n g from the ho od . A t th a t po int , L e ind se y saw ano the r man, wh o w a s st and ingby the fr on t of

the c lub , f

a ll t o t h e g r o u n d

. T h e m ani nt h e p ar k i n g l o tc o n t i n u e d

t o s h o o ta s t h e c ar

s p e d aw a y. 2. Ce le

stePa nk e y , Ka re n Ca mp be ll, J

am es S mi th On July 5, 20 00 , Ch a vis -T uc ke r a

me nd e d h i s p e t i t i o n

f o r p o s t

- c o nvic tio n r e lie f t o in c or po rate aff idavits from Celeste Pankey , Kar en Campbell, and James Smit h. 3 I n Celeste P a

nk ey ’s (“ Pankey ”) a ffidavit, date d Aug ust 26, 1998, she attests that she left Club Alexander’s a

round 12:30 a.m. on April 11, 1992 because of an a ltercation between Chavis-Tucke rNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 7 and anothe r man. B anks wa s one of the se curity g uards who e scorted Chavis-Tucke r outside. Becaus e C hav is -Tu cker

was st il l u ps et, Ce les te f

ol lo wed Bank s and Ch avi s-T uck er to th e car. By the tim e the y

re a c he d th e c ar, and

Pank e y and Cha vis -T uc ke r g ot i n, the man w ithwho m Ch a vis

Tucke r had the alterc ation walked out of the club. Chavis-Tucke r noticed him, starte d the ca r, and drove to the front of t he club. As Chavis-Tucke r was stepping out of the car , Pankey hear d someone sh ou t “ he y ” fr om t

he pa rk inglot , a

nd saw C havis -T uc ke r j ump ba c k in to t he c ar. At th a t po int , Pankey hear d g unshots, he ard Chavis-Tucke r say “thats [si c] the secur ity g uard shooting at us,” a

nd saw B anks shooting at them. Chavis-Tucker pulled his gun f

rom the driver ’s side visor, and a n

e xch ang e of

g un fi re e ns ue d. Cha

vis -T uc ke r d

ro ve awa y wi th B ank s st ill sh oo tin g a t th e m. Pank e y state s th a t sh e and Cha

vis -T uc ke r e ve ntu a lly re a lize d the y ha d a fl a t tir e and ha d to stop to c h an ge i t

. At that point, Pankey noticed a bullet hole in the c ar, w hich she states w as not there when she first enter ed t h e ca r back at the c lub. Chavis-Tucker then droppe d Pankey

off at ho me . Wh e n s he e nte red her ho us e, sh e wa s to ld b y he r c ou sin

that th e po lic e ha d s top pe d b y to question Pankey about the shooting at the club. Ver y soon afte r hear ing this information, Banks a nd

a man named Steve Alexander arr ived at Pankey ’s home and threatened that both she and he r son would be har

med, unless s h e implicated Chavis-Tucke r in the murder and alleg ed that he w as the

o n l y o n e s h o o t i n g. Pankey there afte r we nt to the police station, answer ed questions an d gave a statement implicating Chavis-Tuc ker in the murde r and stating that he wa s the only shooter that night. She states that s h e wa n ted to tell the truth that night but wa s afr aid of the de tectives’ thr eats of be ing char g ed as a

n acc essory

to the murder. A fter Chavis -T u ck er w as ar rested, the prosec utor sentNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 8 Pank e y a ta pe of he r s tate me nt a

nd c a lle d h e r on the ph on e to g o ov e r he r te sti mony . A t th a t po int , sh e tol d th e pr os e c uto r t

hat he r s ta te me nt wa s no t tr ue . T he pr os e c uto r t old

he r t o c ome in a

nd to

c on tin ue to t e sti fy

a bo ut w hat sh e sa id o n th e ta pe . She re fu se d. She a lso a tte sts that su bs e qu e nt t o the murder , her life and the lives of he r childre n have bee n t h re at ened on nume rous occ asions by B ank s. Kar en Campbell (“ Campbell ”) s tates in her a ffidavit, date d Aug ust 25, 1998, that she was leavingClub Alex ander ’s sometime betwe en midnight a nd 1 a.m. on April 11, 1992 when she saw Penn with three othe r men, two of w hom appea red to be secur ity

g uards. She only

spoke to Penn for a minute beca

use he was busy

. As she was walking awa y , a blue car pulled up and a man steppe d out of the driver’s s ide. At that point, she heard som eone y ell and watched the ma n in the blue ca

r look toward the pa

rking lot where Ba

nks was standing with a g un in h i s h an d pointed toward the man in the blue ca

r. Campbell immediately ducked behind a car. S he sawBa nks shoot and the man in the blue ca

r jump ba ck into his car . She saw the man in the blue car return fire and then dr ive off qu ic kly , w hil e B ank s c on tin ue d to sh oo t. Campbell further

states in her a ffidavit that she sa w P enn ly ing on the g round blee ding, a nd that a t th is t ime , B ank s a dmi tte d th a t he mig ht h a ve hit Pe nn when he wa s tr

y ingto h it Ch a vis

Tucke r. B anks told Campbell he would t ak e ca re of ever y thing a nd that she nee ded to g o home. Campbell was later afr aid to te stify in Chavis-Tucke r’s favor at trial bec ause of

the power

and thre at po se d b y the g anga t Clu

b A le xan de r’ s. She no lo nge r f e e ls a fr a id b e c a

us e mos t of

the pe op le in Alexander’s g anghave be en ar rested or are under inve stigation.No. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 9 I n J ames Smith’s affi d av i t , d at ed Jul y 29, 1999, he states that he spoke to Ba nks after the sh oo tin g on

the nig ht o f t

he mur de r, and

that B ank s state d that he pu lle d ou t his g un to f or c e Cha vis

Tucke r to leave the par

king lot. Ba

nks also stated t hat he saw Chavis-Tuc ker r eac h for something in his car that he thought was a gun. B anks, there fore , fired a war ning shot, a

nd Chavis-Tucke r fire d back. B anks admitted to knowing h e h i t t h e car but was unsure if he hit any one in the ca r, and there fore , neede d to ge t rid of his 380 g un, as a pr eca ution. 3. Anthony Eskridge, M orinda Booth, and Steve Ale xander On J uly 5, 2001, Chavis-Tucke r filed additional aff idavits in support of his post-c onviction motion. These af

fidavits wer e fr om Anthony Eskridg e, Morinda B ooth, and Steve Alexander

. Anthony Eskridg e’s (“Eskridg e”) aff idavit, dated J une 12, 2001, indicates that he was at the bar on the night of

the murder , and saw Ba

nks escor ting a man and a woman out of the c lub. When Eskridg e appr oache d Ba

nks to gr eet him, the m an being escorted pushe d him. He later saw the ma

n and the woma

n g et into a ca

r and pull ar ound to the front of the club. Ban k s fired a war ning shot when the ma

n attempted to g et out of his car . The two e x chang ed fire , and B anks kept shooting as the ca r drove off. Eskr idge later notice d a “se curity g uard la y ing on the g round shot in the fac e.” Morinda B ooth’s (“B ooth”) a ffidavit, date d J une 25, 2001, states that she was outside smoking a cig are tte on the nig ht of the incident whe n she saw a blue ca r make a u-turn in f

ront of the club. A man sta

rted to g et out of t h e ca r wh en a s ecur ity g uard loc ated in the middle of the parkinglot shouted something at him and be g an to fire. The man jumped bac k into his car and returne d fire. A nother sec urity g uard w as exiti ng the club, dire ctly behind t he man in the car , and fell to the g round.No. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 10

Ver

y littl e testimony

was e licited from Mi ke P ocock, who was put on t he stand to testify that 4 Club Alex ander ’s was a

front for narc otics distributi on. Pankey mentioned that some of the se curity g uards at Club Alex ander ’s wore t-shirts and 5 some wore uniforms and we re a rmed. I n Steve Alexander’ s aff

idavit, dated Oc t o b er 1 8 , 2000, he states that on the nig ht of the murder, he put stickers on i mproperly parke d vehicles in the parking lot. He place d a sticker on a blue Dodg e Dy

nasty that had no bullet holes in the top or si des of the car, nor did the c ar ha ve any fl a t ti re s.

*** On J anuar y 6, 2005, Chavis-Tucke r filed a motion for summary

judgme nt on his petiti on for post-conviction re lief. On August 15, 2005, the trial cour t dismi ssed Chavis-Tucke r’s pe tition for post-conviction re lief on the merits and denied his summary judgme nt motion. C havis-Tuc ker f iled an appe al w i t h t h e Ohio appellate court, whic h was de nied for be ing untimely . On Novembe r 1, 20 06 , th e Oh io S up re me Court de nie d Ch a vis -T uc ke r l e a ve to a pp e a l. B . Motion for a New Trial On Au g us t 26 , 1 99 8, Cha

vis -T uc ke r s ou g ht a

new tr ial , fi ling a

mot ion purs ua nt t o O hio Crim. R. 33(A)(6) on the basis of newly -discover ed evidenc e. The court held an e videntiary hear ing on this mot ion on J u l y 1 4 , 2000, during which Chavis-Tuc ker a sserted tha t the aff idavit of J ames Smit h, dated July

29, 1999, and the testimony of Pankey , Campbell and Mike J. P ocok war rante d 4

a ne w tri a l. Pankey t es t i fied in the he aringto the same fa cts detailed in he r af fidavit. She furthe r

conce ded that as of the hear ing, she had bee n acqua inted with Chavis-Tucker for 15 y ear s and fr iends with him for y ear s. She also asser ted that the man who shot at Chavis-Tucker was in uniform and 5No. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 11 that sh e la te r de te rm ine d the man wa s B ank s. She a lso sp e c if ic a lly state d that B ank s fi red f ir st, sh oo tin g six ti mes tow ard Cha vis -T uc ke r. Cha

vis -T uc ke r r e tur

ne d f ir e , d isp e ns ingthr e e sh ots

. Ba nks also continued to f

ire at them as they wer e driving off a nd blew out the fr ont rig ht tire of the D o d g e D yn a s t y. On cro s s -examination, Pankey admitted to being convicted in 1992 of rec eiving stolen pr op e rt y , c on vic te d in 19 93 of ro bb e ry , havin g tw ins by on e of Cha vis -T uc ke r’ s c ou sin ’s , ly

ingto the police a

nd putting an inc orre ct addr ess on the af fidavit she sig ned under

oath in 1998. Campb e ll a ls o te s ti f

ie d d u r in g th e e v id e n ti ar

y h e ar in g . Sh e s tate d th a t o n th e n ig h t o f the murder she was lea

ving Club Alexander’ s when she s aw P enn esc ort a man out of the club. She spoke to Penn brief

ly . As she we nt on he r way , a blue c ar pulled up, “ close to the little bars a round the entra nce.” She saw Ba

nks, wea ring a black unifor

m simi lar to a police office r’s, shout at the man in the car while waving his gun. She also testified to seeingBa nks raise a

nd fire his gun befor e she ducked be hind a car . Whil e she was hiding, she saw Ba nks fire at the blue car , which wa s situated betwee n Ba

nks in the parkinglot and the front of the club, as it wa s movi n g. She was unsure whether any shots were fired f

rom the ca

r. Afte r the shooting was ove r, Banks appr oache d Campb e ll, and

sh e sa id: “ Ithi nk y ou sh ot Er ne st. ” I n re sp on se ,“ he ba sic a lly sa id Iwa s tr y ingto h it that g uy in t he c a r. ” She fu

rt he r s ta te d: An d, I ’m lik e , o ka y , w e ll, Ithi nk

y ou sh ot Er ne st. An d h e ba sic a lly

wa s li ke : We ll, I ’ll take c are of it. Don’t worr y about it. A n d I we n t t o walk off to see what was g oing on, a

nd he wa s like: No, g o home. And bec ause I k n o w what they ’re like – Q. What do y ou mean what they ’re like?No. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 12 A. As fa r as e very body that ran A lexander’s, y ou know, I knew that – I

don’t know wh o th e g uy

wa s, Ithi nk

the y us e d to c a ll him Turt le or so me thi ng , bu t he ha d a ll this money and he w as basica lly known that if y ou, y ou know, cross him, he’d kill y ou. Ime an, the y

we re re a lly

kn ow n to be ba d. An d I

jus t le ft

. Campb e ll f

ur the r te sti fi e d that sh e wa s a fr a id g o to the po lic e , a nd that sh e ha d a

so n a nd an e lde rl y mom, both of whom she did not want to involve in this matter. She wa s not afra id to testify at the evidentiar y hear ing be cause “a lot of t he people that wer e there or in that, I g uess ca ll it a ring, the y

are in jail or, Idon’t know, dea d or just gone .” On Se pte mbe r 1 9, 20 00 , Ch a ve z-T uc ke r’ s mo tio n f or a ne w t ri a l w as den ie d f

or fa ilure to demonstrate c lear

and convinc ing proof that a new trial was warra nted. The court found that Pankey g a ve a vid e ota pe d state me nt to the po lic e wh e n or ig ina lly qu e sti on e d that wa s r e vie we d b y de fe ns e

c ouns e l in pr e pa ratio n f or tr ia l, a nd the re fo re , sh e wa s a va ila

ble and dis c ov e ra

ble a t the tim e of

tr ia l. Additionally , the cour

t found that while C am p b el l ’s t estimony was re levant, it would not have chang ed the outcome of trial if it had be en pre sented duringtrial. Fina lly , the cour t found the af fi d av i to f S m i t h u n h el p fu l , as i twa s l i m i t edt o ev en t s fo l l o wi n g t h e s h o o t i n g. On Oct o b er 1 9, 2000, Chavis-Tucke r appe aled this dec ision. His appeal wa s denied sua sponte on J anuar

y 10, 2001 beca

use he f ailed to file a

brief w ithin the tim e re quired by Ohio Ct. App. R. 18(C). C. P e ti ti on fo r Wr itof Ha be as Co r pus On Dec ember

20, 2006, Chavis-Tucke r filed a pr o s e p et i t i o n for a writ of habe as cor

pus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I n this petiti on, Chavis-Tucke r alleg ed: (1) t ri al counsel render ed ineffe ctive assistance ; ( 2) the prosec utor committed misconduc t dur ing c losing a rg ument deprivingNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 13

A ce rtificate of appealability only vests jurisdiction in the appellate court to consider issues 6 sp e c if ie d in the c e rt if ic a te

. 28 U. S.C. § 2 25 3( c )( 3) ; se e Bu gh v . M itc he ll , 3 29 F .3 d 4 96 , 5 02 n. 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 3) ; se e als o V

ale nti ne v . F

ra nc is , 270 F.3d 1032, 1035 (6th Cir. 2001) (lim iting re view of the dismissal of a habe as petit ion as t ime-bar red to the particular claim cer tified for a

ppeala bility ). Both Chavis-Tuc ker a

nd the Gover

nment raise issues not c ertified for appea l. Such issues a re not proper ly befor e this Court and will not be addre ssed her ein. defe ndant of a

fair tr ial; ( 3) the trial court err ed by dismiss ing the petition for post-convic tion relief wi tho ut a n e vid e nti ary

he ari ng ; ( 4) the Oh io C ourt of Ap pe a ls v iol a te d Ch a vis -T uc ke r’ s d ue pr oc e ss rig ht to full and fa ir appe llate re view by dismiss ing his pe tition for post-conviction relief as untimely ; and (5) the Ohio Court of Appe als violated his due proc ess rig hts by dismiss ing the petition for post-conviction relief on proce dural g rounds despite a showing of ac tual innocenc e. A mag istrate judg e re commended that this action be dismissed as barr ed by the one- y ea r st atute of limit ations mandated by

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)

. Over Chavis-Tucke r’s objections, the district court adopted a nd aff irmed the mag istrate judge ’s repor t a nd rec ommendation and dismissed the ac tion. Chavis-Tucke r timely

appea led. The district c ourt granted in part, as to cla ims three, four and five, and denied in pa rt, as to c laims one and two, Chavis-Tucke r’s reque st for a c ertificate of appe a la b il it y . I t s p e c if

ic a ll y c e rti f

ie d th e qu e s ti o n a t is s u e in th e in s ta n t a p p e a l: “ D id pe titioner establish a g atewa

y actua l innocence claim so as to justify equitable t o l l ing of

the statute of l i m i t a t i o n s o r

c o n s i d e r a t i o no f

an y o f h i s u n d e r l y

i n g p r o c e d

u r a l l y d e f a u l t e d c l a i m s ?” 6 II. In r e v i e w i n g a

d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’ s l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s i n a h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g , t h i s C o u rte mp l o ys

a de novo standard. Ha rri s v. H ae be rli n , 5 26 F .3 d 9 03 , 9 09 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) ; see also Souter v . Jones , 395 F.3d 577, 584 ( 6th Ci r. 2005). “ [T] he application of equitable tolling is a que stion of fede ral law.” Kennan v. Bagley , 4 00 F .3 d 4 17 , 4 20 -2 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 5) ; se e als o M

c Swa in v . D av is , 2 87 F.No. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 14 App’x 450, 459 (6th Ci r. 2008) (noting that “[b] eca use equitable tolling base d upon a cla im of actua l inn oc e nc e inv olv e s th e int e rp re ta tio n o f the e vid e nc e a s a wh ole and its lik e ly e ff e c t on re a so na ble jurors, it is primarily

a question of law

on which we do not defe r to the district court’ s judgme nt”). We reviewa district cour t’s fac tual finding s for c lear err or. Souter , 395 F.3d at 584. Chavis-Tucke r filed his habea s petition on Dece mber 20, 2006, a fter the Antiterror ism and Ef fe c tiv e De a th P e na lty

Ac t of 19 96 (“ AE DPA ” ), Pub

. L

. No. 10 4- 13 2, 11 0 St a t. 1 21 4, be c a me eff ective, which makes the require ments and standards set forth in A EDPA applicable to his petiti on. Under AEDPA, “[s] t at e co u rt fac tual finding s are presumed c orre ct unless re butted by clea r and convincingevidenc e.” Cornwell v. Bradshaw , 5 59 F .3 d 3 98 , 4 05 (6 th C ir . 2 00 9) ; see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) (1). A. This Court applies the Schlup standard to de termine whe ther an ap p l i cant has met the require ments for e sta b l i s hing a cog nizable claim of ac tual innocenc e. McCray v . Vasbinder , 499 F.3d 568, 571 (6th Cir. 2007) (re fer ring to Sc hlu

p v . D e lo , 513 U.S. 298 (1995)). U nder Schlup , a habea s petitioner must “show that it is more likely than not t h at no rea sonable juror would have

c on vic te d h im i n th e lig ht o f t he ne w ev ide nc e ,” wh ic h c an ta ke the fo rm

of “ e xcu lpator

y sc ie nti fi c evidenc e, trustworthy

ey ewitness ac counts, or cr itical phy sical evide nce – that was not prese nted at trial.” Schlup , 5 13 U. S. at 32 4, 32 7 ( c itatio ns and int e rn a l qu otatio n ma

rk s o mit te d) ; se e als o H

ou se

v . B e ll , 547 U.S. 518, 537-38 (2006) ( discussing the Schlup sta nd ard ); Town se nd

v . S ain , 3 72 U. S. 293, 317 (1963) ( defining newly -discover ed evide nce a s “evide nce w hich could not re asonably have been pr esente d to the state trier of fa cts”). Schlup “does not re qui re ab s o l u t e certainty about theNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 15

Chavis-Tucke r also brie fly mentions Phy llis L eindsey in the analy sis section of his opening 7 brief, stati n g th a t t

h e “ [t ]h e 1 9 9 6 d e c is io n[b y th e O h io Co u rt o f

A p p e a ls ] d id

n o t i n c lu d e the aff idavit of Phy llis L eindsey , who saw the g uard shooting at the depa rting car .” petitioner’s guilt or innocence ,” but it “is [a] demanding[st andar d] and permits review only in the extraordinary

case .” Ho us e v . B e ll , 547 U.S. 5 1 8 , 5 38 (2006) ( internal quotation marks omitted). I n r e vie wi ngsu c h a

c la im, the dis tr ic t c ourt

“ is n ot b ound

by the ru le s o f a dmi ssi bil ity that w ou ld g overn at trial,” and the habea s court may have to make some cre dibilit y assessments. Schlup , 513 U.S. at 324, 327, 330. Her e, Chavis-Tuc ker a

rg ues that he is a

ble to demonstrate his a ctual innoce nce thr oug h the “thre e witnesses a dded by Peti t i o n er” that “provide the answe r to what the g overnme nt could not

ans we r at tr ia l, n a me ly

ho w a bu lle t f ir e d f ro m th e g un

that ki lle d th e vic ti m als o e nd e d u p in Petitioner’s ca

r.” I t is unclea

r t o which three wit nesses Chavis-Tucker r efe rs, g iven the numer ous aff idavits filed. I n his appellate br ief, Chavis-Tuc ker hig hlights the testimony of Pankey

and Campbell and th e af

fidavits submitt ed by

Dion Wade, Andre ws and Smith. Reg ardle ss, even 7 consideringever

y aff idavit presente d in his original pe tition, C havis-Tuc ker i s u n able to make a showing of ac tual innocenc e base d on newly -discover ed evide nce. A s the Gover nment asser

ts, and the district court found , t h e alleg ed new ly -discover ed evide nce is c ontradictory , was g iven by untrustworthy

ey ewitnesses a

nd, in fac t, is not newly -discover ed. 1. TheAf

fid av its of T e rri Tuc k e r a nd Cha rm e lleMa c k

lin F ir st, a re a so na ble jur or c ou ld e a sil y c on c lud e that th e a ff ida vit s o f T e rr i T uc ke r ( Cha vis

Tu c k e r ’ s w i f

e ) an d M a c k l i n( h i s m o t h e r ) s h o u l d b e v i e w e d

w i t h c a u t i o n , s i n c e t h e y

ar e C ha vis

Tucke r’s family members and, thus, ha ve a persona l stake in his exoneration. McCray , 499 F.3d atNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 16 574. There fore , the t estimony of Ter ri Tucke r and Ma cklin is unlikely to convince a

rea sonable juror t h a tm o r e l i k e l y t h ann o t C h a v i s - T u c k e r i s a c tu a l l y i n n o c e n to f

t h e m u r d e r

o f P e n n . A d d i t i o n a l l y, sin c e thi s te sti mony

c on c e rn s c on ve rsa tions that to ok pla c e duri ngtr ia l, a

nd re la te to d e fe ns e counsel’s a lleg ed fa ilure to ca l l Di on Wade and Andr ews, it was e stablished during the trial and, thus, can ha

rdly be conside red ne wly -discover ed evide nce. 2. Ce le

stePa nk e y ’s Af fid av it Sec o n d , a rea sonable juror

would not likely

deter mine, based upon the rec anting aff idavit and oral testimony

of Pankey , that Chavis-Tucke r is actua lly innocent of the mur der of Penn. A fe w hours af ter Penn’s murde r, Celeste mad e a v i d eotaped statement to the police, in whic h she imp lic a te d Ch a vis -T uc ke r i n th e mur de r. She no w a dv oc a te s a c on tr ary ve rs ion of the fa c ts. “Rec anting aff

idavits and witnesses ar e viewe d with e xtr e me s u s p ic io n . ” Un ite d S tat es v . Ch am be rs , 944 F.2d 1253, 1264 ( 6th Cir. 1991). Additionally , “the ske pticism wi t h wh i ch a court e x amines such an a ffidavit only

heig htens when the rec anting witness is a family member and the witness has fee lings of guilt or the family members seek t o influence the witness to chang e his story .” United Sta te s v . W ill is , 2 5 7 F. 3 d 6 36, 646 (6th Cir. 2001) (interna l quotation marks omitted). At the evidentiar y hear ing f or Chavis-Tuc ker’ s motion for a new trial, Pankey had known Chavis-Tuc ker for 15 y ear s and wa s the mother of his cousin’s twin children, providing a rea sonable juror with a sound basis on which to discount her te stimony

. Fur ther, Chavis-Tuc ker w as aw are of Pankey at the time of trial, a s she was with him on the night in question, and therefor e, her testimony is not newly -discover ed. Chavis-Tuc ker a rg ues that Pankey was not ava ilable during trial bec ause she ref used to testif

y . He re lies on evidenc e fr omNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 17

ano the r c a se fo r s up po rt , s ta tin g that “w he n the ow ne r of [Club Al e xan de r’ s] mad e thr e a ts a g a ins t the Assistant United States Attorney prosec uting him in a fe dera l drug conspirac y , an executive protec tion de tail was for

med by the g overnme nt.” Ther efor e, Chavis-Tuc ker a sserts “[i] t was not

un re a so na

ble fo r the wi tne ss to als o tak e me a sure s to pr ote c t he rs e lf ,” by no t te sti fy

inga t hi s tr ia l. Th e thr e a ts h ig hli g hte d b y Cha vis -T uc ke r w e re ma de by a man w ho wa s n ot i mpl ic a te d i n this matter, e x cept indire ctly by his ownership of the c lub. Chavis-Tucker ’s ar g ument, there fore , can be d i s c ar d e d b y a r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r a s i r r e l e v an t

. M o r e o v e r , P an k e y ’ s r e f u s a l t o t e s t i f

y a tC h a vis

Tucke r’s trial c ould just as easily be int erp re t ed b y

a re asonable juror as a

ref usal to provide te sti mony that wo uld se nd he r f ri e nd to j a il, a s it

c ou ld b e int e rp re te d a s a

me a sure to p ro te c t he rs e lf

and he r f a mil y fr om t he se c ur ity

g ua rd s at Clu b A le xan de r’ s. Fur ther, Panke y ’s cr edibility

is damag ed by her past history of dishonesty , demonstrated by her c onviction in 1992 for re ceivingstolen proper ty , her c onvictio n i n 1 9 9 3 for robbery , her

a dmi ssi on

tha t sh e lie d to the p oli c e , a

nd the mis le a din g a dd

re ss s he inc lud e d in

he r a ff ida vit , to pr e ve nt o the rs fr om f

ind inghe r, wh ic h s he sig ne d und e r o a th i n 1 998. A re a so na ble jur or c ou ld conclude that Pankey

is an unreliable ey ewitness. 3. J am es S mi th ’ s Af fid av it The a ffidavit of James Smit h is a littl e more compelling than the af oreme ntioned ones, as he is neither a r eca

nting witness nor

does he a ppear to be a family member of Chavis-Tuc ker’ s. The tim ingof his a ff ida vit a nd his his tor

y , h ow e ve r, g ive on e re a so n to qu e sti on the vera cit y of

his aff idavit. See Sc hlup , 513 U.S. at 332 (stating that “the Court ma y consider how

the timing of the submissi on and the likely

cre dibilit y

of the a ffiants be ar on the probable reliability of that evide nce” );No. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 18 see also Giles v . W

olfenbarger , 23 9 F

. Ap p’ x 145 , 1 48 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) (c on sid e ri ngthe a uth e nti c ity of an a ffidavit, the motivation of the a ffiant, the c ircumstance s of the af fidavit’s execution, the timing of its submissi on, and its consistency with other evide nce in the trial rec ord to be important in a sse ssi ngwh e the r a

c a se is e xtra or din ary

and wa rr ants tol lin g ba se d o n a c tua l inn oc e nc e ). Smith

was a drug deale r for t he club a nd only filed this affidavit after he had bee n convicted of fede ral criminal cha

rg es and g iven a se ven-y ear sentenc e. Ad dit ion a lly , th e pr ob a tiv e va l ue of Smith’ s te sti mony

is d imi nis he d b y

his fa ilure to a c tua lly witness the murder , rela

y ing inf ormation only

obtained af

ter the murde r. See M

cCray , 499 F.3d at 573-74 (discounting the testimony of witnesses that did not see t h e m urder wher e disintereste d

e y e wi tne ss t e sti mony

wa s ava ila

ble ). F ur the r, Smit h’ s af fi davit su g g e sts B ank s w ante d to dis po se of his g un beca

use he w as af

raid he hit someone in the car not beca use he w as af

raid that he hit Penn,

e ve n th ou g h B ank s w ould hav e kn own at th a t po int that Pe nn

ha d b e e n s ho t. I f a

ny thi ng , th is sug g ests Ba

nks did not hit Penn. Given this infere nce, the timing of the a ffidavit, and Smith’s failure to actually

see the murder, Smi th’s aff idavit does not compel us t o find that more likely than not no

rea sonable juror

could have found Chavis-Tuc ker guilty of the murde r of Penn. 4. SteveAlexande r ’s Af fid av it Th e a ff ida vit of Ste ve Al e xan de r d oe s n ot c omp e l a fi nd ing of a c tua l inno c e nc e be c a us e it does not pr ovide additional information that was not available a nd was not pre sented to the jury at the time of trial. Steve Ale x ander testified at trial, as he did in hi s aff idavit, that he place d stickers

o ni n ap p ro p ri at el y

p ar k ed ca rs i nt h e c l u

b p ar k i n g l o t , an d

t h at h e p l ac eda s t i ck er

o na b l u e D o d ge Dy nasty the nig ht of the incident. Steve Alexander te stified that he did not notice any thing unusua lNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 19 at the time he place d the sticker on the blue car , which a r easona ble juror c ould conclude me ans that the re we re no bu lle t ho le s in the c ar o r f la t ti re s. Ste ve Al e xan de r s pe c if ic a lly a tte sts in h is a ff

ida vit t o t h e f a c tt h a tt h e r e w e r e n o b u l l e t h o l e s o r f l a tt i r e s . T h i s e v i d e n c e , w h i c h i s n o t“ n e w l ydiscovere d,” does not ther efor e support Chavis-Tuc ker’ s actua l innocence claim. 5. Kar e n Ca mp be ll’

s A ffi da v it Campb e ll’ s te sti mony

is r e le va nt and wa s a lle g e dly un a va ila ble a t th e tim e of

tr ia l be c a us e she wa s afr aid of Club Alexander’s e mploy ees. The d i s t ri ct cour t found that the timing of C am p b el l ’s af

fi d av i td i m i n i s h es h er

cr ed i b i l i t y . Ye ti f C am p b el l wa s af ra i d o f A l ex an d er ’s gan g, it is reasonable that she would wa it until the “r ing” had bee n broken to testify

. Nonethele ss, based on the mater ial inconsistencies in the e vidence prese nted by Chavis-Tucke r, as de tailed below, we

are unpersua ded that more likely than not no rea sonable juror wo u l d have f ound Chavis-Tucke r g uilty of the murde r of Penn. 6

. Significant Contradictions A d d i t i o n a l l y, a s t h e d i s t r i c tj u d g e f o u n d , t h e r e w e r e m a t e r i a l i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h e s e “ n e w l ydis c ov e re d” a ff

ida vit s and wi th e vid e nc e pr e se nte d at tr ia l. Th e ma jor ity of the se po st- tr ia l a ff ida vit s state that there was a

second shooter

(B anks), that a

g un fig ht en s u ed , an d t h at because of the direc tion in which Banks was shooting, B anks shot Penn. This contradic ts testimony elicited at tria l from Strickland, who only hear d two shots, a nd Steve Alexander, who hear d three shots. W illiam Fowlke s (“F owlkes”) , who was he ad of se curity at Club Alex ander ’s in 1992 and prese nt the night of the incide nt, testified during trial to hear ing only one shot. Fur

ther, Eskridg e, L eindsey , Dion Wade, and Andr ews state that Ba nks shot at Chavis-Tucker from the hood of

a car , while neitherNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 20 Booth, Campbell nor Panke y , who was in the D odg e Dy nasty at the time of the murde r, mention that Ba nks climbed on top of a c ar. The re is also some discr epanc y in the testimony

as to whethe r B anks ke pt s ho oti ngwh ile the Do dg e Dy na sty wa s d ri vin g of f. Many of the po st- tr ia l a ff

ida vit s sug g e st that he did, while Strickland testified at trial that no one ra n from the sc ene with a g un. Fur ther, trial testimony place d Ba

nks inside the club af

ter escorting Chavis-Tucke r to his car . Ba nks testified as much, as did F owlkes, who also said that Ba nks escor ted Strickland outside, wh i ch wo u l d h ave likely place d Ba

nks in front of the c lub at the time of the murde r. Thus, while this evidence casts some doubt on the number of shooters at Club Alex ander ’s on the nig ht in question, the reason f or the bullet holes in the Dodg e Dy nasty , as we ll as the rea son that the same ty

pe of bullet use d to kill P enn wa s found in Chavis-Tucke r’s c ar, w e ar e not per suaded that more likely t h an not no re asonable juror could have found Chavis-T ucker g uilty of Penn’s murder be y ond a re asonable doubt. Souter , 39 5 F. 3 d at 590. Ultimately , the number of

c on tr a dic tio ns and

inco ns ist e nc ie s in

the se nume ro us a ff

ida vit s c omp e ls u s to fi nd

that Ch a vis

Tucke r has not made a succ essful showing of ac t u al i n n o ce n ce. See M cCray , 499 F.3d at 573 (finding petitioner fa iled to support an ac tual innocen c e cla im where the “she er qua ntity of” e vidence was unmatc hed by

“its quality ”). Fur ther, it should not be forg otten that “evide nce linked the bullet that killed Penn to the car that [C havis-Tuc ker] was driving , and w i t n es s es testified that [he] was ang ry and intox icated a

nd thus had a motive to beg in shooting towards Strickland a s Penn was esc orting [C havis-Tuc ker] out of the bar.” The fac t that the bullet hole in Chavis-Tucker ’s ca r wa s made using the same gun that fired the bullet that killed Penn sug g ests, at the ver y least, that Chavis-Tuc ker w as at the sc ene of theNo. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 21 murder. A dditionally , while af fiants’ stateme nts that Banks w as shooting f rom the hood of a

car provide a n explanation as t o why a bull et hol e wa s later f ound in the roof of

the Dodg e Dy

nasty , a

rea sonable juror could easily conclude that this bullet hole was made later in order to f rustrate the evidenc e. In this case, the jur ors at Chavis-Tuc ker’ s trial implicitl y found this to be the case , g iven that Chavis-Tucke r’s a

ttorney advanc ed the theory of an alternate shooter throug hout his trial but the jury was ultimately unpersua ded. Fur ther, the f act that de fense counsel’s strateg y during trial was not just t o implicate B anks i n the m urder , but also to sug g est that the m urder er ma y have be en one of the other secur ity g uards, raises at least some doubt a bout the vera city

and the c onfidenc e of the po st- tr ia l a ff

ida vit s. F ina lly , it is w or th m e nti on ingthat th e g a te wa y a c tua l inno c e nc e sta

nd a rd is n ot i mpo ssi ble to m e e t but th a t he re , Ch a vis -T uc ke r’ s e vid e nc e do e s n ot r e a ch th e thr e sh old le ve l ne e de d to

succe ssfully

demonstrate ac t ual innocenc e. In Ho us e , a g atewa y actua l innocence claim was

succe ssful beca

use the “ centr al forensic proof connec ting [the petitioner] to the crime . . . ha[d] been called into question, and [the petitioner] ha[d] put forwa rd substantial evidenc e pointing to a d if f e r e n t s u s p e c t.” Ho us e , 547 U .S. a t 55 4; se e als o M c Swa in , 287 F. App’ x at 460. Even unde r those circ umstances, the Supreme Court considere d the i ssue “close.” Ho us e , 547 U.S. at 554

. The standard ha s also been met where a petitioner submitted new e vidence that “the only direc t evidence lin kin g ” him

to t he vic tim ’s de a th, c ou ld n ot l ike ly c a us e the inj ur

y that pr ov e d fa ta l to the vic tim

. Souter , 3 95 F .3 d a

t 59 7; s e e a l

s o Mc Swa in , 287 F. App’ x at 460-61. The “new ly -discover ed”

e vid e nc e su

bmi tte d h e re do e s not c re a te su c h a c omp e lli ngpic tur e of

a c tua l inno c e nc e , r a the r t his

e vid e nc e a t mos t pr e se nts “ a c la ssi c sw e ari ngma tc h” be tw e e n e vid e nc e pr od uc e d at tr ia l and

po st-No. 07-4537

Chavis-Tucke r v. Hudson Pag e 22 trial aff idavits that la ck any indicia of re liability

. Bo sle yv . Ca in , 409 F.3d 657, 665 ( 5th Cir. 2005). There fore , it would violate the principle that the use of this exception “re main rar e,” a nd its corollary that it s a pp lic a tio n is re se rv e d f

or “ on ly

. . . th e e xtra or din ary c a se ,” to fi nd that this c a se fa lls wi thi n the exception. Souter , 395 F.3d at 590 (citations and inter nal quotation marks omitted). We dec line t o m ak e s u ch a f

i n d i n g. B. We a

re a lso c omp e lle d to de ny re vie w o f C havis -T uc ke r’ s p ro c e dura lly defa ul ted cl a ims

. Ge ne ra lly , a

fe de ra l ha

be a s c ourt

c ann ot r e vie w a

c la im tha

t w a s p ro c e dura lly

de fa ult e d in state court, J e lls v . M itc he ll , 538 F.3d 478, 488 ( 6th C i r. 2 0 08), althoug h a proc edura l defa ult can be

ov e rc ome by

a sh owof c a us e and pr e jud ic e or “ wh e re a c on sti tut ion a l vi olatio n h a s p ro ba bly resulted in the c onviction of one who is ac tually innocent.” Murray v . Carrier , 477 U.S. 478, 485, 49 6 ( 19 86 ); see also Hall v. Vasbinder , 5 63 F .3 d 222 , 236 (6 th Cir . 2 00 9) . T his Court us e s th e same actua l-innocenc e standard de veloped in Schlup to decide w hether to reviewa fe dera l habea s petitioner’s proc edura lly

defa ulted claims. McCray , 499 F.3d a t 571. Be cause Chavis-Tucke r has not demonstrated a ctual innoce nce, he is not entitl ed to such review for his procedur ally defa ulted

c la ims

. III . Ac c or din g ly , f

or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , we a ff

ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on to d ism iss Cha vis -T uc ke r’ s unti me ly

ha be a s p e tit ion

and to d e ny re vie w o f his pr oc e dura lly de fa ult e d c la ims

.