2009 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 7-8-2009 

# Ge rald T e agle v . D a vid D iGuglielmo 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 . 08-2587

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ge r ald T e agle v . D a vid DiG u gl ielmo " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1040. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1040NOT 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. 08- 2587 G E R A L D T E A G L E ,

A ppel l ant v. D A V ID D IG U G L IE L M O , S U P T . S C I G R A T E R F O R D ; DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y, CO UNT Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A; AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF P E NNS YL VANI A

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 2- 07- cv- 02805 ) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y8, 2009) A r gued J une 11, 2009 B efore: M cK E E , H A R D IM A N , and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es.

C hery l J . Stur m , E s q. ( A r gued) 387 R i ng R oad C hadds For d, PA 19317 C ouns el f orAppel lant J ohn W . G ol ds bor ough, E s q. ( A r gued) T h ree S o u th P en n S q u are Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107T he part i es di d noti ncl ude the s t at e courtN ot es of Test i m onyi n the appe ndi x, 1 and w e have been una bl e t o pr ocur e them on our ow n. A s the part i es do nott ake i s s ue w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s um m aryof the tr i al t es t i m ony , w e der i ve ourdi s cus s i on of that te s tim o n yf

ro m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o p in io n . 2 C ouns el f orAppel l ee s OPI NI ON O F THE COURT V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge. G er al d T eagl e appe al s fr om the fi nal or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor the East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . T he s ol e ques t i on cert i fi ed t o us on appea l fr om the or derdeny i ng habea s r el i ef i s w hether T e a g le is e n tit led to e q u itab le to lli n g o f th e A n tit e rro rism a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A ctof 1996’ s ( “A E D PA ”) s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons on the bas i s of hi s cont ent i on of ac tual in n o c e n c e . B e c a u se T e a g le f a ils to e sta b lish a v a lid c laim o f a c tu a l in n o c e n c e , w e w ill aff i r m w i thoutdeci di ng w hethers uch a c l ai m can e qui t abl yt ol l A E D PA ’ s s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s. I. O n M a y1 2 , 1 9 8 3 , fo llo w in g a f o u r-d a yb e n c h trial in P e n n sy lv a n ia s tate c o u rt, A pp el l ant G eral d T eagle and co -defend ant J oh n H un t er w ere conv i ct ed fo r the fir st degr ee mur derof M arvi n Y or k. A ttr i al , the def endant s admi t t ed thattheys hotand 1 ki l l ed Y or k butt es t i fi ed thatthe ki l l i ng w as i n s el f- defe ns e as theyhad s een Y or k m ake a3

m ove forhi s gun befor e theys hothi m . T he C om m onw eal th pr es ent ed t es t i m onyfr om Y or k’ s l ongt i m e fr i end, K onr ad J ett . J ettt es t i fi ed thathe w as appr oachi ng the pas s enger s i de of Y or k’ s carw hen he s aw T eagl e and H unt er , w i th guns dr aw n, w al k up t o the dr i ver ’ s s i de, w her e Y or k w as s eat ed, and ea ch fi r e fourt o s i x s hot s atY or k atpoi nt bl ank r ange. J ettthen r an t o t he dr i ver ’ s s i de of the ca r , pus hed Y or k i nt o the pas s enger s eat , and bega n t o dr i ve t o a hos pi t al , gett i ng aboutfourbl ocks befor e bei ng s t opped by pol i ce. J ettt es t i fi ed thathe di d notknow of anyi nci dent s of vi ol ence i nvol vi ng Y or k and that Y ork w as not carry i ng a gu n o n the dayhe w as ki l l ed. T he C om m on w eal th als o c a lled a p o lice o f

f ice r w h o tes tifie d th a t n o w e a p o n s w e re f o u n d o n Y o rk ’s p e rso n , in Y o rk ’s c a r, o r e lse w h e re in th e v icin ityo f th e c rim e sc e n e . A n o th e r o f f ice r te stif

ied th a t, i m m edi at el yaft erthe s hoot i ng, he s aw J ettgeti nt o the dr i ver ’ s s i de of Y or k’ s carand d riv e a w a y ; th e o f

f ice r sta ted th a t, be f

o re h e p u lled it o v e r, h e d id n o t o b se rv e a n yo b jec ts thro w n fro m the c ar. T eagl e and H unt ert es t i fi ed thatY or k, on the dayhe w as ki l l ed, had bea t en them
w i th a gun and thr eat ened t o ki l l them i f theydi d notr epayhi m fordrugs thathe had g iven them ea rl ier. T h eyclaim ed that, im m ed iat elyb ef o re the ysh o t Y o rk, th eyw ere appr oachi ng hi s cart o t el l hi m thattheyneede d m or e t i m e t o r ai s e the moneytheyow ed h im . T e a g le a n d H u n ter sa id th a t, as th e ya p p ro a c h e d , the ysa w Y o rk re a c h f o r h is
w e a p o n a n d , b e liev in g h e in ten d e d to k ill th e m , the yd re w th e ir w e a p o n s a n d sh o t h im m u lti p le tim e s. T e a g le te stif ied th a t as h e a p p ro a c h e d Y o rk ’s c a r h e h a d a g u n in h is4

p o c k e t, th a t th e g u n h a d a ro u n d in th e c h a m b e r, a n d th a t th e g u n w a s “ c o c k e d ,” i.e ., re a d yto b e f

ire d . T e a g le a lso n o ted th a t h e k n e w Y o rk a lw a y s c a rrie d a w e a p o n a n d th a t, w h e n d riv in g , Y o rk k e p t h is w e a p o n u n d e r h is s e a t. T eagl e w as convi ct ed and, on Sept ember20, 1984, w as s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . O n N ovember8, 1985, the Penns y l vani a Super i orC our taff i r m ed the tr i al c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t o n d ire c t ap p e a l. O n A u g u st 1 5 , 1 9 8 6 , an d F e b ru a ry1 2 , 1 9 9 7 , T e a g le fi l ed uns ucce s s ful pet i t i ons fors t at e pos t convi ct i on col l at er al r el i ef. O n J une 28, 2004, T e a g le f iled h is th ird p e tit io n f

o r sta te p o stc o n v ictio n re lief , as se rtin g c laim s s im ilar to thos e pr es ent ed i n t he habe as pet i t i on ati s s ue. O n A ugus t25, 2005, the pet i t i on w as d is m is s e d a s u n tim e ly; th is d e c is io n w a s a f f ir m e d b yth e P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p e ri o r C o u rt . T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeni ed alloca t ur on M ar ch 7, 2007. O n J ul y5, 2007, T e a g le f iled th e p e tit io n f

o r h a b e a s c o rp u s th a t is th e su b jec t o f th e in sta n t ap p e a l. A ccor di ng t o T eagl e’ s habea s pet i t i on, on M ar ch 23, 2004, J ettappr oache d T eagl e’ s s i s t erata fune r al and s t at ed thathe w ant ed t o cl earhi s cons ci ence aboutthe tes tim o n yh e g a v e a t h e r b ro th e r’s trial. T e a g le’ s s iste r re layed th is in f o rm a tio n to A ppel l ant ’ s att orney , C hery l Stur m , w ho arr anged f ora pr i vat e i nves t i gat ort o i nt ervi ew J ett . A ccor di ng t o M s . Stur m ’ s i nves t i gat or , J ettw as i nt ervi ew ed on M ay17, 2004, and s t at ed thatY or k, on t he dayhe w as ki l l ed, announce d thathe w as goi ng t o ki l l T eagl e and H unt erbeca us e he ga ve them her oi n t o s el l and theyhad di s r es pect ed hi m bynotpay i ng fori t . J ettfur thers t at ed that , atthe t i m e of the s hoot i ng, he s aw T eagl e and H unt erJ ett ’ s chi l dr en w er e i n Y or k’ s caratthe t i m e of the s hoot i ng. 2 5 appr oachi ng Y or k’ s carfr om di ffe r entdi r ect i ons befor e theys hotY or k and that , aft ert he s hoot i ng, he found a gun i n Y or k’ s l ap, w hi ch he “ pas s ed off t o one of the guy s on the c o rn e r” b e f

o re d riv in g a w a y . Je tt cla im e d th a t h e lied a t trial b e c a u se h e “ d id n ’t w a n t to m a k e [ Y o rk ] l o o k b a d . . . . I w a s a n g ry a n d w a n te d to s e e [ T e a g le a n d H u n te r] b u rn . T h e yk ill e d m yf

rie n d a n d a lm o st k ill e d m yc h ild re n .” Je tt state d th a t h e w a s n o t ab le to 2
se e w h e th e r Y o rk b ra n d ish e d th e w e a p o n a t T e a g le a n d H u n ter b e f o re h e w a s s h o t. T eagl e’ s habea s pet i t i on al s o i ncl udes s t at ement s fr om A nthonyE ur e and M i kal M u h am m ad that co rrob o rate T ea g le’s an d H u n ter’s t esti m o n ythat Y o rk, a f ew h o u rs befor e he w as s hot , had pi s t ol w hi pped and thr eat ened t o ki l l them. E ur e and M uhamm ad also n o ted th at Y o rk h ad a re p u tat ion fo r vio lenc e. E u re a sserted that h e told T ea g le’s tr i al couns el thatY or k beatand thr eat ened t o ki l l T eagl e and H unt er , butthatthe l aw y er n e v e rt o o k h i s s t a t e m e n to rc a l l e d h i m t o t e s t i f y. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the habe as pet i t i on on the gr ounds thati tw as t i m ebarr ed underthe A E D PA ’ s s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) , fi ndi ng that T ea g le w as n o t entit led to statu torytoll ing u n d er § 2 2 4 4 (d)(2 ) be ca u se th e state c o u rt r ej ect ed hi s thi r d pos t convi ct i on r el i ef pe t i t i on as unt i m el y . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o found that , even a s s um i ng s uch an a r gum entcoul d be gr ounds forequi t abl e t ol l i ng of the A E D PA ’ s s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , T eagl e fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h hi s actual i nnocenc e. II.O n e o f T e a g le’ s m a in a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l is th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in 3 fi ndi ng thathe w as notent i t l ed t o s t atut oryt ol l i ng under§ 2244( d) ( 2) , w hi ch pr ovi des thata “pr oper l yfi l ed appl i cat i on forSt at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef” t ol l s § 2244( d) ( 1) ’ s oney e a r l im ita tio n s p e ri o d f o r t h e tim e d u ri n g w h ic h th e p ro p e rl yf ile d a p p lic a tio n is p e n d in g . A s thi s i s s ue i s out s i de the s cope of the ce r t i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty , w e maynotcons i der it. See Vi l l otv. V

ar ner , 373 F. 3d 327, 337 n. 13 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W hi l e w e have the au tho ri tyto ex p an d the s co p e o f th e c erti fica te of ap p ea labili ty , w e re fu se to d o so h ere beca us e r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d notdebat e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatan appl i cat i on fors t at e pos t convi ct i on r el i ef i s not“pr oper l yfi l ed” unde r§ 2244( d) ( 2) w hen it h a s b e e n d e e m e d u n tim e ly b yth e s ta te c o u rt s . See A l l en v. Si ebert , 552 U . S. 3, 4 ( 2007) ( “B eca us e [the habe as pet i t i oner ’ s ] pet i t i on fors t at e pos t convi ct i on r el i ef w as r ej ect ed as u n tim e lyb yth e [ sta te] c o u rts, it w a s n o t ‘p ro p e rlyf iled ’ u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (d )(2 ).”) ; P ace v . Di Gu g l i e lmo , 5 4 4 U .S . 4 0 8 , 4 1 4 (2 0 0 5 ) (“ W h e n a p o stc o n v ictio n p e tit io n is u n tim e ly unders t at e l aw , ‘ that[i s ] the end of the mat t er ’ forpurpos es of § 2244( d) ( 2) . ” ( quot ed r efe r ence om i t t ed; al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ) . A s not ed i n P ace , itw o u ld h a v e b e e n a d v isa b le fordefe ns e couns el t o have f i l ed “a ‘ pr ot ect i ve’ pet i t i on i n fede r al court [, ] as ki ng the fede r al courtt o s t ayand abe ythe fe der al habea s pr ocee di ngs unt i l s t at e r emedi es [w er e] exhaus t ed. ” P ace , 544 U . S. at416 ( ci t i ng R hi nes v. W eber , 5 4 4 U .S . 2 6 9 , 2 7 8 (2 0 0 5 )) . T h is is s o b e c a u se , g iv e n th e tim e e lap se d b e tw e e n T e a g le’ s c o n v ictio n a n d th e f ili n g d a te of the thi r d appl i cat i on fors t at e pos t convi ct i on r el i ef, and the fa ctthatT eagl e’ s s econd appl i cat i on fors t at e pos t convi ct i on r el i ef w as di s m i s s ed as unt i m el y , defe ns e couns el s houl d have be en aw ar e thatt i m el i nes s w as ati s s ue. 6 W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt issu e d a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili tya s to w h e th e r T e a g le is e n tit led to e q u itab le t ol l i ng i n l i ghtof hi s actual i nnocenc e ar gum ent . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe 3 D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s re f

u s a l to e q u ita b ly to ll th e A E D P A ’s s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . U

r ci nol iv. C athel , 5 4 6 F . 3 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). III . T eagl e ar gues thatthe one y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons s houl d be equi t abl yt ol l ed b a se d o n th e e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e o f h is a c tu a l in n o c e n c e . W h ile o th e r C irc u itsC o m p a re , e.g ., D a v id

v . H a ll , 3 1 8 F .3 d 3 4 3 , 3 4 7 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ [ D ]e f e n d a n ts 4 w ho m aybe i nnocentar e cons tr ai ned bythe s ame expl i ci ts t atut oryorrul e- bas ed d e a d lin e s a s th o s e a g a in s t w h o m th e e v id e n c e is o v e rw h e lm in g . . . .” ), w i th Sout erv. Jones , 395 F. 3d 577, 599 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( “[E] qui t abl e t ol l i ng of [A E D PA ’ s ] one- y ear li m it ati o n s p eriod b ase d o n a c red ible sh o w ing o f a ctua l i n n o ce n ce is ap p rop ri ate.”). 7 have de bat ed the i s s ue, w e have noty etdeci ded w hethera cl ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e may 4
e q u ita b ly to ll A E D P A ’s s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . McKeever v. W arden SC I- G rat erf

ord , 486 F. 3d 81, 84 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . W e nee d notdo s o t o r es ol ve the i ns t antcas e bec aus e, even a s s um i ng thata vi abl e cl ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e coul d equi t abl yt ol l the l i m i t at i ons p e ri o d , to llin g w o u ld b e a p p ro p ri a te o n ly if T e a g le m e t th e s ta n d a rd f o r s u c h a c la im , i.e ., thathe off

er ed “ne w r el i abl e evi dence ” es t abl i s hi ng that“i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have f ound [hi m ] gui l tybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Schl up v. D e lo , 5 1 3 U .S . 2 9 8 , 3 2 4 , 3 2 7 (1 9 9 5 ); s ee al s o H ubbar d v. P i nchak , 378 F. 3d 333, 338- 40 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( des cr i bi ng Schl up and i t s pr ogeny ) . T he Supr eme C our thas emphasi zed thatthi s s t andar d “i s demandi ng and perm i t s r evi ew onl yi n the extr aor di narycas e. ” H o u se v . B e ll , 5 4 7 U .S . 5 1 8 , 5 3 8 (2 0 0 6 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ); see al so Sw egerv. C hes ney , 294 F. 3d 506, 523- 24 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( des cr i bi ng the bur den a p eti ti o n er m u st m ee t t o estab li sh ac tual inn o ce n ce as “ ex tr em elyh igh ”). T eagl e s uppor t s hi s cl ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e w i th the s t at ement s fr om J ett , E ur e, and M uhamm ad, w hi ch w e fi nd i ns uffi ci entt o m eetthe Schl up sta n d a rd . Je tt’s a f f id a v it r eca nt s hi s tr i al t es t i m ony , es s ent i al l yadmi t t i ng thatthe bul k of s uch t es t i m onyw as per j ury . Such s us pi ci ous and untrus tw or thyevi dence does not , i n the abs ence ofB oth s t at ement s des cr i be ey ew i tnes s acc ount s of Y or k’ s beat i ng and thr eat eni ng 5 T eagl e and H unt erhour s befor e theys hothi m . E ur e as s ert s thathe t ol d T eagl e’ s tr i al couns el aboutw hathe s aw , butthatcouns el di d notfol l ow up on the i nform at i on. 8 a d d iti o n a l co rro b o ra tin g e v id e n c e o r c irc u m sta n c e s, m e e t th e sta n d a rd o f re liab ili ty c o n t e m p l a t e d b y Schl up . S e e L a n da n o v . R a ffer ty , 856 F. 2d 569, 572 ( 3d C i r . 1988) (“ C o u rts h a v e h isto ric a llyv iew e d re c a n tatio n tes tim o n yw ith g re a t su sp icio n .”); see al so C om m on w ealth v. Henry , 7 0 6 A .2 d 3 1 3 , 3 2 1 (P a . 1 9 9 7 ) (“ R e c a n tatio n tes tim o n yis extr emel yunr el i abl e. W hen the r eca nt at i on i nvol ves an admi s s i on of per j ury , i ti s the l eas tr el i abl e form of pr oof. ” ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ) . T he othertw o s t at ement s not onl ypr es entr el i abi l i tyconce r ns butcont ai n i nform at i on thati s not“new , ” as i tw as a v a ilab le a t trial a n d d e f e n se c o u n se l ch o se n o t to p re se n t it . G oldbl um v. K l em , 510 5 F .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 2 6 n .1 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (“ E v id e n c e is n o t ‘n e w ’ if it w a s a v a ilab le a t trial, b u t a pet i t i oner‘ m er el ychos e nott o pr es enti tt o the j ury . ’ ” ( quot i ng H ubbar d v. P i nchak , 378 F .3 d 3 3 3 , 3 4 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 )) . F u rth e rm o re , ev e n a ss u m in g th a t th e th re e a f f id a v its c o n stitu ted n e w a n d re liab le evi dence , theyfai l t o es t abl i s h t hati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatno r eas onabl e j ur or w oul d have f

ound T eagl e gui l tybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . A l l thr ee a ffi davi t s s t at e that Y or k w as a vi ol entper s on and had publ i cl ybeat en and thr eat ened t o ki l l T eagl e and H unt eri n t he hour s pr ece di ng hi s death. W hi l e thi s corr obor at es the def endant s ’ tr i al t es t i m ony , i tal s o w oul d al l ow a r eas onabl e j ur ort o concl ude thatT eagl e had a s tr ong m o ti v e f o r m u rde ri n g Y o rk. Jett ’s af fid av itco rrob o rates the d ef en d an ts’ claim that Y o rk9

w a s a rm e d a t th e tim e h e w a s k ill e d b u t d o e s n o t in d ica te w h ich m a n w a s th e f irst to b ran d ish a firearm . E v en u n d er the se a ssu m ed fa cts, itw o u ld n o t be u n rea so n ab le fo r a j ur ort o concl ude thatT eagl e— w ho byhi s ow n admi s s i on w as carry i ng a l oaded, cocke d fi r earm w hen appr oachi ng a man w ho had ea r l i erbeat en and thr eat ened t o ki l l hi m — w as th e f irst to a c t. I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng habea s r el i ef.