Opinion ID: 591438
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: cross's recantation

Text: 12 The state argues that Cornell's claim based on Cross's more recent recantation is procedurally barred by Cornell's failure to raise this claim in a timely fashion in the state courts. 13 A claim not raised in the state courts will not be considered by a federal habeas court unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause for his previous failure to raise the claim and prejudice. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2506, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Recently, the United States Supreme Court held that the cause and prejudice standard should also be used to evaluate whether a petitioner should be excused from his failure to develop a material fact in state court proceedings. See Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992). 14 [C]ause ... ordinarily requires a showing of some external impediment preventing counsel from constructing or raising the claim. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 492, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2647, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). An external impediment can be the reasonable unavailability of the factual basis for the claim. McCleskey v. Zant, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1472, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991). See also Murray, 477 U.S. at 488, 106 S.Ct. at 2645. If what petitioner knows or could discover upon reasonable investigation supports a claim for relief in a federal habeas petition, what he does not know is irrelevant. Omission of the claim will not be excused merely because evidence discovered later might also have supported or strengthened the claim. McCleskey, --- U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1472. We also note that one aspect of the test for newly discovered evidence is whether the evidence could have been discovered earlier in the exercise of due diligence. See United States v. Bednar, 776 F.2d 236, 238 (8th Cir.1985). 15 Applying these standards, we find that the factual basis for Cornell's claim based on Cross's recantation was reasonably available to petitioner at the time of his state postconviction hearings. Postconviction counsel knew that Cross had previously recanted in 1977. Counsel knew that Cross was incarcerated in Jefferson City, Missouri. See transcript of October 9, 1985, postconviction hearing at 204. There is nothing in the record that suggests that counsel could not have obtained Cross's recantation, through an affidavit, deposition, or other means, for the postconviction hearing. 3 There is nothing in the record that suggests that counsel made any attempt to contact Cross. We note that the postconviction trial court held evidentiary hearings on October 9-10, 1985; November 13, 1985; January 8-9, 1986; January 23, 1986; February 18, 1986; May 1, 1986; and June 5, 1986. It appears from our review of the record that the postconviction trial court gave Cornell every opportunity to obtain evidence in support of his claims. We find no due diligence here. 16 In Coleman v. Thompson, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2566, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), the United States Supreme Court held that there is no cognizable habeas claim for ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel because no constitutional right to counsel exists in postconviction proceedings. Thus, postconviction counsel's failure to more fully investigate the potential of Cross's recantation cannot constitute cause. 17 Because we find that Cornell has not demonstrated cause for his procedural default, we need not address the issue of prejudice. 18 A narrow exception to the cause and prejudice standard exists. A procedural default will be excused if petitioner can demonstrate that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will occur from the federal court's refusal to entertain the claim. See Tamayo-Reyes, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 1721; Murray, 477 U.S. at 495-96, 106 S.Ct. at 2649-50. In order to fall within this exception, petitioner must demonstrate that a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent. Murray, 477 U.S. at 496, 106 S.Ct. at 2649. Recently, the United States Supreme Court refined the actual innocence standard and held that to show 'actual innocence' [of the death penalty] one must show by clear and convincing evidence that but for a constitutional error, no reasonable juror would have found the petitioner eligible for the death penalty. Sawyer v. Whitley, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 2514, 2517, 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992). This new standard also applies to habeas challenges to convictions. McCoy v. Lockhart, 969 F.2d 649 (8th Cir.1992). 19 The district court concluded that if Cross's recantation and the statements from Jody Seidenkranz and Bryce Oliver were presented to a jury on retrial, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would acquit Cornell. Although this conclusion is not entirely equivalent to a finding of actual innocence, we must address the question of whether this statement by the district court is a factual finding of actual innocence subject to a clearly erroneous review or whether this conclusion should be reviewed de novo. We have located no authority in the case law discussing what standard of review applies to a conclusion of actual innocence. 20 In Sawyer, the Supreme Court appears to apply a de novo standard to the issue of whether Sawyer had demonstrated actual innocence. Sawyer, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2523-25. In a somewhat related context, we have applied a de novo review to the ultimate conclusion of mixed questions of law and fact, although predicate factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See, e.g., Bliss v. Lockhart, 891 F.2d 1335, 1339 (8th Cir.1989) (reviewing de novo ultimate finding of ineffective assistance of counsel, which requires showing that but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different). Accordingly, we consider the question of actual innocence de novo. 21 Cross's testimony was a small part of the evidence against Cornell. It was not, in our view, crucial to the prosecution's case. Bryce also testified that Cornell had made the statements which Cross attributed to Cornell. The testimony of Albert was the crucial testimony against Cornell. 4 Cross's recantation does not directly cast any further doubt on Albert's testimony. As discussed later in this opinion, we do not find the statements from Jody Seidenkranz and Bryce Oliver to be material under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Accordingly, we do not find that Cornell has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that but for the alleged errors, no reasonable juror would have convicted him. 5