Opinion ID: 677091
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidentiary hearing required

Text: 19 In the district court Parkus sought an evidentiary hearing in order to present evidence concerning a history of childhood mental disease. Parkus also sought to present evidence, allegedly withheld by the prosecutor, of prior consensual sex with the victim, of abuse suffered by the petitioner while in prison, and of records in the possession of the prison which contained information about child abuse inflicted on petitioner by his uncle. 20 The district court denied Parkus' motion for an evidentiary hearing because, in its view, Parkus failed to prove cause and prejudice to remove the procedural bar from his claims. Further, the district court was unpersuaded that any of the newly discovered evidence would likely have changed the outcome of petitioner's trial. We believe that Parkus has demonstrated cause and prejudice sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance and suppressed evidence claims. 21 Parkus procedurally defaulted both of these claims by failing to raise them on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceedings. 4 4] A [habeas] petitioner who has failed to develop evidence in state court must show cause and prejudice for that failure in order to merit an evidentiary hearing in federal court. McKee v. Nix, 995 F.2d 833, 835-36 (8th Cir.) (citing Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 565, 126 L.Ed.2d 465 (1993). The existence of cause for a procedural default ordinarily turn[s] on whether the prisoner can show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel's efforts to comply with the State's procedural rule. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2645, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). A petitioner may demonstrate an objective impediment to compliance with a procedural rule by showing that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available to counsel, or that some interference by officials made compliance impracticable. Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
22 As cause for failing to raise his claim of inadequate investigation into his mental health history in the state courts, Parkus alleges that DYS representative Matchett informed trial counsel that all mental health records from Parkus' youth had been destroyed. Trial counsel, according to Parkus, relied on Matchett's statement, and failed to further pursue institutional records even though petitioner's sole defense was that he suffered from a serious mental condition which affected his deliberative capacity. Parkus contends that he, counsel on direct appeal, and post-conviction counsel were all unaware of the falsity of Matchett's statement, and thus were unaware of trial counsel's ineffectiveness. 23 The district court concluded that the petitioner's default for failing to raise this claim in the Rule 29.15 proceeding should not be excused because Parkus must have known of his own childhood mental illness and abuse. Indeed, Rule 29.15 requires the movant to raise every ground known to the movant for vacating, setting aside, or correcting the judgment or sentence. Mo.S.Ct.R. 29.15(d). Here, both Parkus and his trial counsel obviously knew their defense centered on defendant's impaired mental capacities. They did not know, however, and Parkus, a possibly mentally ill and borderline mentally retarded person, could not be expected to know, that mental health records from his various youth placements existed after being told the opposite by a state official. Matchett's untrue representation, made either intentionally or unintentionally, constituted some interference by officials [which] made compliance [with the state procedural rule] impracticable. Murray, 477 U.S. at 488, 106 S.Ct. at 2645 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 24 We now turn to the question of whether Parkus has demonstrated actual prejudice. To establish actual prejudice in the context of an ineffective assistance claim, petitioner must meet the prejudice standard established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), by demonstrating a reasonable probability that, but for ... [the] errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Hollis v. Davis, 941 F.2d 1471, 1480 (11th Cir.1991) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068, and applying its prejudice standard where petitioner attempted to show cause and prejudice to avoid procedural default), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1478, 117 L.Ed.2d 621 (1992). Under this standard, a petitioner claiming that an attorney's deficient performance prejudiced him need not show that he could not have been convicted. Instead, he need only undermine our confidence in the trial's outcome. Foster v. Lockhart, 9 F.3d 722, 726 (8th Cir.1993). 25 In evaluating prejudice under this standard, we take into consideration the additional evidence Parkus would have presented to the jury, including data indicating childhood mental illness (schizophrenia), mental retardation and psychosis. See supra, n. 2. The childhood psychological evaluations, unknown to Dr. Daniel at the time of the trial, were of sufficient importance to cause him to change his clinical opinion. Daniel now concludes that Parkus suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of Steffenhagen's murder. Appellant's App. Vol. III, Tab 24, Exh. 5. 26 For the purposes only of cause and prejudice, we believe this new evidence, while having some bearing on guilt, could have had a stronger impact and effect on the penalty phase. Further, we determine that a reasonable probability exists that the jury, if given the opportunity to consider Parkus' additional evidence, would not have convicted him of first degree murder at the guilt phase, or, otherwise, would not have imposed the death penalty at sentencing. 5 Parkus' allegations of cause and prejudice are therefore sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 6 27 At the hearing the petitioner can further develop his evidence, and most importantly, may be able to cross-examine the State's psychological expert to determine if his clinical opinion might also be modified in light of the new evidence of Parkus' childhood mental illness. Accord Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 415, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 2604, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986) (plurality opinion) (highlighting the importance of cross-examination of psychiatrists in sanity disputes). We leave it to the district court to determine the effect of this new evidence upon either or both of the penalty and guilt phases of Parkus' trial. For that determination, we call attention to Hill v. Lockhart, 28 F.3d 832 (8th Cir.1994), where differing standards applied to the guilt phase as compared to the penalty phase of the criminal trial. 28 We emphasize that our holding--that cause and prejudice exist to justify an evidentiary hearing--is in no way determinative of the merits of the underlying claim. That decision rests with the district court in the first instance.
29 We determine that Parkus is also entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Brady claim. Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1197, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), a prosecutor violates the accused's due process rights when he refuses to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant which is material either to guilt or to punishment. Evidence is material only if there exists a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383-84, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. 30 Parkus asserts that the prosecutor suppressed prison records which: (1) show that Parkus and Steffenhagen had consensual intercourse on at least one occasion prior to the murder, (2) document Parkus' abuse by other prisoners, and (3) contain information that Parkus' uncle abused him during childhood. While it is uncertain that proof of a former relationship with the victim is material to Parkus' guilt or sentence, the other two kinds of records bear on Parkus' mental state at the time of the killing, and are thus clearly material. Parkus contends that absent this evidence, the prosecutor could, and did, portray Parkus as a predator who selected Steffenhagen at random, and ridicule as untrue Chester's testimony corroborating Parkus' childhood abuse. 31 Petitioner acknowledges that he failed to present this claim to the state courts, but asserts cause and prejudice to remove the procedural default. We think Parkus has sufficiently alleged cause in that the prosecutor, though requested to do so, failed to furnish all records favorable and material to the defense. Parkus' appeals and post-conviction counsel relied on the information given to trial counsel that all relevant records and reports had been disclosed. This excuses their failure to raise the claims prior to resolution of the 29.15 proceeding. Parkus has also sufficiently demonstrated prejudice. Confidence in the outcome of the proceeding is undermined by the jury's inability to consider evidence which would have been offered as proof of lack of guilt (due to lack of mental element), and as mitigating evidence at sentencing. Again, our holding leaves determination of the merits of the underlying claim for the district court on remand.