Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207940/Justin-Wolfe-v-Harold-Clarke-4th-Cir-2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:29:12+00:00

Document:
Before KING, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Duncan joined.
Judge Thacker wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, Katherine B.
Georgia; Daniel S. Epps, Karen F. Grohman, KING & SPALDING, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
edict that Wolfe be retried or released.
the entry of this order." Id. at 25.
which requires the testimony of Owen Barber in any form."
24, which in turn constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying a federal bar to his proposed retrial.
neglected to timely observe the retry-or-release directive.
from the custody imposed as the result of his 2002 convictions.
three and thirty years, respectively.
material evidence, contrary to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
Wolfe and specified that Wolfes "conviction and sentence"
a timely notice of appeal.
motion and entered one of the orders relevant to this appeal.
him unconditionally from custody" within 120 days. Id. at 2.
granted on November 22, 2011. See Wolfe v. Clarke, 819 F.
Order. These documents are found at J.A. 91-93.
Judgment, and the Stay Order.
error regarding the other grounds for relief, or to consider Wolfes crossappeal. See Wolfe II, 691 F.3d at 416-17.
Wolfe in the state criminal proceedings.
such invocation was related to Barbers interview by the prosecutors.
prosecutors had engaged in "gross prosecutorial misconduct"
dismiss the indictments on the basis of, inter alia, the Barber interview.
Amendment and declined to testify in Wolfes retrial. The motion to dismiss thus remains pending in the circuit court.
in the Barber interview to justify any such action.
2012 interview had been recorded without his knowledge.
had been unaware that the encounter was recorded.
causing Barber to be legally unavailable to testify in a retrial.
district courts interpretation of its own judgment." ABT Bldg.
contained in their orders." JTH Tax, Inc. v. H & R Block E.
Tax Serv., Inc., 359 F.3d 699, 706 (4th Cir. 2004).
a trial date remains unscheduled.
habeas claim, there is no state court adjudication to which we would defer.
setting, which is to delay actual release of the successful petitioner, thus permitting the state authorities to remedy the constitutional defects and retain the petitioner in confinement.
absolute." Blacks Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009).
was not obliged to actually complete a retrial within 120 days.
of jurisdiction. Upon reviewing this issue de novo, see United States v.
a mootness argument that is foreclosed by Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S.
disqualification from elected office). See also Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S.
state court, or even that a jury be selected, so long as proceedings leading to a retrial had commenced in the circuit court.
in Wolfe II, on September 7, 2012.
a weekend, the deadline for retrial moved to Monday, October 15, 2012.
[Wolfe] a new trial within 120 days, said trial actually occur within that period of time.
Id. at 14 (quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Director would be prevented from exercising his right of appeal.
of the Wolfe II appeal, yet failed to bring it to our attention.
courts rulings on the basis of subsequent procedural developments. See Capps v. Sullivan, 13 F.3d 350, 353 (10th Cir.
1993) (remanding for district court "to give effect to its original understanding of the order granting [habeas relief]"
resulting from any pretrial motion").
clarity: When a district court awards habeas relief, it is preferable that its order include language ensuring that the respondent will suffer no prejudice by exercising its right of appeal.
Commonwealth of Virginia does not commence the retrial . . .
if an appeal is taken.").
120 days, we turn to the remedy for that transgression.
in the most extraordinary of circumstances. See Gilliam v.
court abused its discretion in barring Wolfes retrial.
rearresting and retrying the prisoner."
circumstances . . . a habeas court may forbid reprosecution."
avoid self-incrimination." Id. at 24.
truthful testimony at trial. Br. of Appellant 35.
event Wolfe is acquitted, any such issues would be moot.
U.S. 66, 102 (1967) (Fortas, J., concurring).
the constitutional errors could have been thereby remedied.
state neither retried petitioner nor sought stay of habeas writ).
adverse legal consequences attendant to those convictions.
that the state circuit court may devise.
harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable relief." Gilliam, 75 F.3d at 903 (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 54).
to protect or effectuate its judgments.
not preclude the conduct of such other and further proceedings in the state or federal courts as may be appropriate.
is done." Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1365 (2011).
to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).
circumstances," Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir.
fits squarely into that narrow space.
is, "at its core, an equitable remedy," Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S.
(quoting 28 U.S.C. 2243). See also Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S.
would be reviewed for abuse of discretion).
v. Wilson, 624 F.3d 640, 649 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 439-40 (1973) (reprosecution would violate petitioners right to a speedy trial).
delay, and they have "served extended and potentially unjustified periods of incarceration" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
demand equitable relief in the form of a bar on re-prosecution.
trial, or release him unconditionally from custody,"
within ten (10) days of the entry of this order.
from death of Danny Petrole which requires the testimony of Owen Barber in any form.
constrains the Court to extraordinary remedies.
him with Capitol [sic] Murder[.]" Wolfe v.
the Commonwealth made with its witness J.R.
what is provided." Wolfe II, 691 F.3d at 423.
all of the reports dealing with the drug investigation and he did not provide them to Petitioner,"
the district court found "contained falsities." Wolfe, 819 F.
suppressing that information would result in denying Petitioner an opportunity to craft a defense based on the information.").
As Mr. Barbers counsels testimony indicated during this Courts December 13, 2012 hearing, Mr.
again deprived Wolfe of potentially exculpatory evidence.
enough "such that the holding of a new trial would be unjust."
Capps, 13 F.3d at 353.
the prosecution team would be necessary to avoid any continued improprieties.
hearing. Wolfe, 819 F. Supp. 2d at 570.
for over an hour, but at no point did Barber relent.
DETECTIVE NEWSOME: "You know, . . .
down, theres no need to take [Wolfe] with me.
So Ill just tell this lie to make it easier on him.
that. We are held accountable for our actions.
Scripture tells us to obey the laws of the land.
the Lords all that forgiving or not." Id. at 354.
[when you were asked why you killed Petrole]?"
"Do you know why you dont remember?
Because it wasnt the truth." Id. at 361.
you changed. It has to be truthful and plausible[.]" Id. at 367-68.
CONWAY: "You know what the truth is, Owen.
then I think thats different." Id. at 370-71.
[was] slowly eating her away," id. at 302).
behavior is not extremely rare.
September 11, 2012 might appear to be benign.
remedy through its habeas decree.
to figure that out?" Id. at 457.
[at trial] unless theres a new development[.]" J.A. 471-72.
S.E.2d at 873; Va. Code Ann. 19.2-270)).
abuse its discretion in barring re-prosecution of Justin Wolfe.
I would affirm the district courts remedy and thus, respectfully dissent as to Part III.B. of the majority opinion.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v.