Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/799/593/117841/
Timestamp: 2019-11-15 01:09:57
Document Index: 572455514

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2243']

Clifford Henry Bowen, Petitioner-appellee, v. Gary D. Maynard, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary,respondent-appellant, 799 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1986) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1986 › Clifford Henry Bowen, Petitioner-appellee, v. Gary D. Maynard, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary,r...
Clifford Henry Bowen, Petitioner-appellee, v. Gary D. Maynard, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary,respondent-appellant, 799 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1986)
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 799 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1986) June 25, 1986
While his appeal was pending before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Bowen filed in that court a second motion for new trial alleging newly-discovered evidence and the failure to disclose exculpatory material. The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the matter to the trial court to determine if an evidentiary hearing was appropriate. Judge Naifeh conducted hearings and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law overruling the second motion. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Bowen's convictions. See Bowen v. Oklahoma, 715 P.2d 1093 (Okla.Crim.App.1984). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, see Bowen v. Oklahoma, --- U.S. ----, 105 S. Ct. 3537, 87 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1985), and the Court of Criminal Appeals set Bowen's execution for August 12, 1985.
On the merits of its appeal, the State contends that (1) the federal district court erred in finding that the defense made a specific oral request for a list of other suspects, and (2) the withheld material is not exculpatory within the meaning of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny.
Carrie Pitchford, a motel guest, testified that she had been sitting at the poolside table with Peters, Nowlin, Behrens, and others for much of the day and that she returned to her room between 1:15 and 1:30 a.m. She looked out the window, over a distance of eighty-five feet, and saw a "very large man" who was at least six feet tall and wore no glasses. Rec., vol. V, trial trans., vol. II, at 334, 356. His face appeared "very large" and " [v]ery, very white." Id. at 355. He wore a white T-shirt, jeans, and a bright red cap. His light-colored hair stuck out from under the cap, but she did not see any facial hair. The man had looked straight up at her, and she looked at him full in the face. The lighting "was similar to the stage in a grammar school.... The lighting was very good." Id. at 339; see also id. at 349. When she identified Bowen in court, Pitchford described him as he sat at counsel table as wearing glasses, and having gray hair and "a very light skin." Id. at 334-35.
By July 28, 1980, Oklahoma City detectives had learned from a confidential informant, reportedly Harold Behrens, that Peters was killed because he had "ripped off" Paul Mazzell, the reputed head of organized crime in Charleston, South Carolina, in a Dilaudid deal, and that the hit man had come from Charleston. See rec., vol. II, 2d motion trans., at 173-74.3 Some of this information was contained in the district attorney's file at the time of trial in the "black book," see infra Part I(D) (3). A police report in the book, dated August 9, 1980, contained the following information provided by Behrens. Ray Peters had been involved in drug trafficking in Charleston. Approximately a year earlier, Peters' partner "Rick" had been abducted from a convenience store by two individuals and killed, and his body had never been recovered. Rick was killed "because he had double crossed some big time Dilaudid Dealers in Charleston, South Carolina. RAY PETERS was also suspected of double crossing the dealers...." Def. fed. habeas ex. 1A (report of B. Horn dated Aug. 9, 1980 regarding suspects Coy Hines, Jeno Hines, and Bubba Hines).
In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196, the Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." The prosecution violates the Brady rule if after a request by the defense it suppresses evidence which is both favorable to the defense and material to guilt or punishment. See Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794-95, 92 S. Ct. 2562, 2567-68, 33 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1972).
At least prior to the Court's decision in United States v. Bagley, --- U.S. ----, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985), the materiality of the evidence was judged according to three distinct standards. First, where the prosecution knew or should have known that its case included perjured testimony, the conviction will be overturned "if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103-04, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 2397-98, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1976). Second, where defense counsel requests disclosure of particular evidence, the specific request puts the prosecution on notice of its obligation to disclose. In such a case, the verdict must be set aside if "the suppressed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial." Id. at 104, 96 S. Ct. at 2398. Third, where the defense has made a general request for all Brady material, the prosecution is put on no better notice than if no request is made. Where there is no request or a general request, the judgment will be set aside "if the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist." Id. at 112, 96 S. Ct. at 2402.
Bagley, 105 S. Ct. at 3384; see also id. at 3385 (White, J., joined by Burger, C.J., and Rehnquist, J., concurring in part and in judgment). This test was articulated subsequent to the trial in this case.
Bowen's argument that he need only satisfy the Agurs test governing situations where a specific request was made rests on his assertion that his counsel made such a request orally. The State disagrees. Thus, we must first address whether defense counsel before trial made an oral4 request for a list of other suspects. Such a request would be a specific request because it gives "the prosecutor notice of exactly what the defense desired," Agurs, 427 U.S. at 107, 96 S. Ct. at 2399, and is formulated in terms as precise as possible under the circumstances, see Chaney v. Brown, 730 F.2d 1334, 1341-42 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1090, 105 S. Ct. 601, 83 L. Ed. 2d 710 (1985).
The State contends Judge Naifeh found that no oral request had been made and that this finding must be presumed correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1982). The State further contends Judge Brett erroneously found that in the federal hearing the State conceded a request had been made,6 and that he failed to articulate his reasons for overriding the state determination as required by Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 101 S. Ct. 764, 66 L. Ed. 2d 722 (1981). Bowen argues that the state findings do not preclude the possibility of an oral request and that, even if they do, the state record does not fairly support such a finding. He maintains further that the State's concession at the federal hearing establishes the error of the alleged state factual determination and that we must accept the federal district court's finding of a concession unless it is clearly erroneous. Bowen makes no attempt to deal with the requirements of Sumner.
"Appellant asserts the suppression of the allegedly exculpatory evidence regarding these suspects denied him due process of law under the authority of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). However, as appellant recognizes, no request was made for exculpatory evidence prior to trial."
It is unclear whether either the state trial court or the Court of Criminal Appeals implicitly decided that no informal, oral request had been made or rather did not reach the issue because they believed that an oral request was not legally equivalent to a motion or written request.7 If either court did find that no request of any kind had been made, this would be a finding of historical fact, see Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 309 n. 6, 83 S. Ct. 745, 755 n. 6, 9 L. Ed. 2d 770 (1963) (citing Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 506, 73 S. Ct. 397, 445, 97 L. Ed. 469 (1953) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.)), entitled to a presumption of correctness by federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Id. at 45-46 (emphasis added). Later in his argument Nance appeared to contradict these concessions when he stated that " [o]ur view is and continues to be at this point that there was no request." Id. at 51.
" [T]he Court doubts that a casual question, sometime early in 1981, was sufficient to alert the prosecution that defense counsel wanted exculpatory material under Brady. It appears from the testimony that a casual question was asked and honestly answered. Mr. Wright evidently did not make any follow-up in order to clarify that his request was for exculpatory evidence within the meaning of Brady. At the evidentiary hearing conducted in the present case, Mr. Macy did not even recall the question being asked. If the desired information regarding other suspects was important enough to the defense to matter in trial, it is not unreasonable to require the defense to file a written motion for exculpatory evidence under Brady.... The Court believes that a casual question, whether asked in the office, in the hallway, or outside the courtroom, does rise [sic] to the dignity of a request under Brady unless it firmly and unquestionably puts the prosecution on notice that the defense is inquiring about the exculpatory evidence.
The State now attempts to elude the finding of a concession. It first contends that its persistent avowed reliance on the state court findings is inconsistent with a concession that those findings are wrong. This argument not only assumes that the state court findings are complete and unambiguous but also fails to explain how a concession would not undermine those findings. Second, the State argues that Macy's lack of recollection precluded it from unequivocally asserting that no request had been made and that its silence on the issue does not constitute an affirmative concession. Unfortunately for the State, we cannot require the district courts to observe such semantic niceties. For the reasons set out below, we conclude that the finding of an oral request for other suspects is supported by both the federal and state court records and is not clearly erroneous. See rec., vol. III, 1st motion trans., at 905, 973; id. vol. II, 2d motion trans., at 12-13. It remains to be determined, however, what effect the presumption of correctness accorded state court findings by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) has on the district court's finding that the State conceded an oral request was made.
As we have stated, if the state court did find that no request of any kind had been made, federal courts must presume this finding correct unless one of the seven conditions specified in section 2254(d) applies.8 If none of these conditions applies, or unless the habeas court concludes that the state court finding is not fairly supported by the record, the petitioner has the burden of establishing by convincing evidence that the state court finding is erroneous. See Sumner, 449 U.S. at 550, 101 S. Ct. at 770. The State's concession establishes that the facts material to the question of a specific, oral request were not adequately developed at the state court hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (3); cf. rec., vol. III, 1st motion trans., at 905, 973. Moreover, to the extent the state court findings can be construed to imply that the defense made no specific, oral request for a list of other suspects, the concession convincingly establishes the error of that determination. Bowen therefore has amply met his burden under section 2254(d).
Remaining for our consideration is Sumner's requirement that a habeas court include in its opinion granting the writ the reasoning which led it to conclude that one of the first seven factors was present, or the reasoning which led it to conclude that the state finding was not fairly supported by the record. See Sumner, 449 U.S. at 551, 101 S. Ct. at 771. The Supreme Court has stated that:
Id. at 551-52, 101 S. Ct. at 771. Accordingly, we must decide whether Sumner applies and, to the extent it does, whether its requirements were met in this instance.
At the outset, it is unclear whether Sumner is on all fours with the issue of the oral request. In Sumner the Ninth Circuit reversed the conclusion of both the federal district court and the state courts by finding that a pretrial photographic identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive. The Ninth Circuit made this determination based on the identical record considered by the federal district and state courts and used the same constitutional standard. See id. at 543, 101 S. Ct. at 767. The Supreme Court noted that the Ninth Circuit failed to apply the presumption of correctness and did not even refer to section 2254(d) in its opinion. See id. at 547, 101 S. Ct. at 769. The Court criticized this apparent abrogation of the congressional mandate, noting that:
Id. at 549, 101 S. Ct. at 770 (emphasis in original); cf. S. Rep. No. 1797, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1966 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3663, 3663-66.
Impeachment evidence merits the same constitutional treatment as exculpatory evidence. Suppression of material which could be used to impeach witnesses violates the Constitution if it deprives the defendant of a fair trial. E.g., Bagley, 105 S. Ct. at 3380-81 (evidence of bias); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S. Ct. 763, 766, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972) (same). The case against Bowen stands or falls upon the testimony of the two identification witnesses. One of the assistant district attorneys who prosecuted Bowen agreed that in this case identification is a key issue. See rec., vol. II, 2d motion trans., at 223 (testimony of David Hardwicke). As the district attorney himself conceded, the evidence to convict would have been insufficient without the testimony of the two witnesses. He stated under cross examination:
The State urges that Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 92 S. Ct. 2562, 33 L. Ed. 2d 706, is analogous. In Moore the Court found no Brady violation in the prosecution's failure to disclose certain statements of a witness named Sanders, who testified that the defendant had boasted in a bar called the Ponderosa Tap that he had shot a bartender in a nearby city. Although Sanders identified Moore at trial as the boaster, he previously had told police that the man was "Slick," who was a different person from the defendant. The Court stated:
Id. at 795, 92 S. Ct. at 2568. Thus, the Court emphasized that two eyewitnesses had identified the defendant as a participant in the shooting and that two other witnesses besides Sanders had identified the defendant as the boaster. In contrast, the only identification evidence against Bowen was significantly impeachable with the withheld material. Additionally, there was no evidence that "Slick," unlike Crowe, had motive, opportunity, and ability to kill the bartender. See infra Part IV(B). We are not persuaded, therefore, that Moore controls our consideration of this appeal.
As the State has reminded us, a Brady inquiry is grounded in an "overriding concern with the justice of the finding of guilt." Agurs, 427 U.S. at 112, 96 S. Ct. at 2401. On the state of the evidence, the Lee Crowe material creates reasonable doubt that Bowen committed the Guest House murders. Additionally, in the hands of the defense, it could have been used to uncover other leads and defense theories and to discredit the police investigation of the murders.
Lee Crowe, in contrast, could have been motivated by several factors. First, his fiancée Patsy had been married to one of the victims, Ray Peters, who had threatened and struck her just prior to his death. Deana Burris could have testified that Patsy wanted Ray dead and that Crowe was willing to kill him. Although the Burris testimony was not known to the prosecution at trial and therefore is not exculpatory within the meaning of Brady, an investigation of Crowe and Patsy might well have led to their former roommate. See Bagley, 105 S. Ct. at 3384 (incomplete response to specific request may effectively represent to defense that evidence does not exist and cause defense to abandon lines of independent investigation). Second, Crowe's ties with the Charleston, South Carolina organized crime syndicate and its connection with Ray Peters, see supra pp. 600-601, support a hypothesis that Crowe killed Peters. While this information was not in the prosecution's file, an investigation of Crowe undoubtedly would have led to the South Carolina authorities who had been investigating him for over a year. Third, Crowe could have committed the murders for money alone, just as easily as Bowen. Cf. Moore, 408 U.S. 786, 92 S. Ct. 2562 (no evidence that misidentified suspect had motive).
The State vigorously contends that no one placed Crowe at the scene of the murders although two witnesses put Bowen there. We find unpersuasive this reliance on testimony which could have been impeached with the Lee Crowe material. Crowe had a distinct opportunity to commit the murders. By all accounts he and Patsy Peters were staying at the home of the Forgusons in Mannsville, Oklahoma. When Oklahoma City detectives interviewed Margie Forguson, she told them she was away on July 5 and 6 and believed that Crowe stayed home with her husband and Patsy on the night of July 5. An Oklahoma City detective testified that, when police finally interviewed Mr. C.B. Forguson in 1983, he stated that Crowe had stayed at the house that night. Aside from Mr. Forguson's possible bias and disingenuousness, we are left to wonder what time he retired that evening and whether Crowe still could have traveled the 130 miles to Oklahoma City by 2:00 a.m. In the six year history of this litigation, no one has ever sworn to being with Crowe on the night of the murders. These facts differ widely from the situation in Moore, 408 U.S. 786, 92 S. Ct. 2562, where Slick was never placed near the crime scene and the withheld evidence about him provided insignificant impeachment use, particularly in light of other identification witnesses.
The withheld evidence also raises serious questions about the manner, quality, and thoroughness of the investigation that led to Bowen's arrest and trial. A common trial tactic of defense lawyers is to discredit the caliber of the investigation or the decision to charge the defendant, and we may consider such use in assessing a possible Brady violation. See Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034, 1042 (5th Cir. 1985).
Because we hold that the defense made a specific request for a list of other suspects, the standard of materiality for judging the suppressed evidence is whether it might have affected the outcome of the trial. See Agurs, 427 U.S. at 104, 96 S. Ct. at 2397. We need not take judicial notice of the vagaries of eyewitness accounts to state with assurance that the Lee Crowe material meets this standard. Alternatively, even if no request had been made, the withheld material "creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist" and therefore meets the test where a general or no request has been made. See Agurs, 427 U.S. at 112, 96 S. Ct. at 2402. Where, as here, identity is in issue, a creditable alibi defense is presented, and no physical evidence ties the defendant to the crime, material showing that someone resembling the defendant had motive, opportunity, and ability to commit the crime is "sufficient to undermine [our] confidence in the outcome" of the trial. The Crowe material also meets the Bagley requirement of a "reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Bagley, 105 S. Ct. at 3384.
The orders of the federal district court setting aside the three murder convictions of Clifford Henry Bowen as constitutionally invalid, granting the writ of habeas corpus conditionally, and imposing conditions for Bowen's release including the posting of a $100,000 appearance bond, are affirmed.12 We also agree with the district court that the effect of its judgment in granting the writ of habeas corpus was to invalidate the convictions and death sentences for constitutional infirmities. Nonetheless, the information filed in state court charging Bowen with three counts of first degree murder has not been set aside, and retrial on these charges is not barred. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 728, 81 S. Ct. 1639, 1645, 6 L. Ed. 2d 751 (1961); Bromley v. Crisp, 561 F.2d 1351, 1364 & n. 13 (10th Cir. 1977) (en banc), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 908, 98 S. Ct. 1458, 55 L. Ed. 2d 499 (1978); see also Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 31 n. 8, 94 S. Ct. 2098, 2104 n. 8, 40 L. Ed. 2d 628 (1974). The State is also not barred, upon Bowen's release under the district court's order, from retaking custody of Bowen under the murder charges in the information, see Irvin, 366 U.S. at 728, 81 S. Ct. at 1645 ("Petitioner is still subject to custody under the indictment filed by the State ...."), and seeking any protective orders under state procedure to ensure Bowen's appearance for retrial in accordance with state law. Carter v. Rafferty, 781 F.2d 993, 997-98 (3d Cir. 1986).
Bowen's lawyers became aware of Crowe when they were contacted by South Carolina law enforcement agents regarding the second interview with Deana Burris. See infra Part I(D) (2)
We agree with the federal district court that a specific, oral request which is not on the record is legally equivalent to a formal, written motion when the parties agree that such a request was made. We do not decide under what other circumstances an oral, nonrecord request is legally sufficient as a request for specific exculpatory material. Cf. Zeigler v. Callahan, 659 F.2d 254, 269 n. 9 (1st Cir. 1981) (issue not reached because oral request later waived); Fleming v. Kemp, 748 F.2d 1435, 1448 (11th Cir. 1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel claim that counsel failed to file formal Brady motion held frivolous where counsel made oral request at pretrial conference), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S. Ct. 1286, 89 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1985); United States v. Montoya, 716 F.2d 1340, 1345 (10th Cir. 1983) (specific, oral request made on record at trial)
As an initial matter, the State urges that the federal district court erred in taking further testimony. We disagree. Bowen alleged that he had not received a full and fair opportunity to develop certain facts at the state hearing. The district court ordered the State to advise whether the claims raised a factual issue, whether the factual issue had been resolved in the state proceedings, and whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary, in light of the circumstances outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The district court also directed the State to furnish transcripts and findings of the state proceedings in which the factual issue was allegedly resolved. After the court granted an evidentiary hearing, it stated that it would permit additional evidence not duplicative of that presented to the state court. See rec., vol. VI, fed. habeas, at 8. Under these circumstances, we believe the federal district court's grant of an evidentiary hearing was proper. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 310-19, 83 S. Ct. 745, 755-60, 9 L. Ed. 2d 770 (1963); see also Miller v. Fenton, --- U.S. ----, 106 S. Ct. 445, 450, 88 L. Ed. 2d 405 (1985); LaVallee v. Delle Rose, 410 U.S. 690, 701 n. 2, 93 S. Ct. 1203, 1209 n. 2, 35 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1973) (Marshall, J., dissenting); White v. Estelle, 556 F.2d 1366, 1368 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1977); 17 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure Sec. 4265, at 670 (1978)
Generally, a district court ruling in the petitioner's favor in a habeas case provides a reasonable time in order to afford the State an opportunity to re-try the defendant or otherwise correct the constitutional infirmity. See, e.g., Carter v. Rafferty, 781 F.2d 993, 994 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1986); Martinez v. Turner, 461 F.2d 261, 265 (10th Cir. 1972). In this case, the writ issued immediately. In light of the conditions of release imposed by the district court, see supra p. 596, to secure "Petitioner's appearance at all future proceedings herein," the Fed. R. App. P. 23(c) provision on immediate release, and the 28 U.S.C. § 2243 directive that the district court "dispose of the matter as law and justice require," we conclude that the district court in these circumstances did not abuse its discretion in ordering the immediate issuance of the writ of habeas corpus