Opinion ID: 155628
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The State’s Alleged Waiver

Text: The exhaustion requirement, although not to be lightly overlooked, is not jurisdictional. See Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 131 (1987); Hernandez, 69 F.3d at 1092-93. As a result, there are circumstances in which a state may be deemed to have waived the exhaustion defense such that a federal court may consider the merits of a petitioner’s claims--even though those claims have not been fairly presented to the state 3 On appeal, Mr. Demarest also briefly argues that this court need not analyze the evidence presented at the federal evidentiary hearing because the evidence presented to the Jefferson County District Court in support of his motion for post-conviction relief under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c) is sufficient to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). See Aple’s Br. at 21-22. We are not persuaded by this argument. Although the evidence presented at the state court hearing provides ample support for the first element of the Strickland analysis, that trial counsel’s errors “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, there is little concrete evidence in the state court record to establish the second Strickland element, that there is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694. In particular, the evidence presented by Mr. Demarest at the state court hearing does not establish what effect the interviewing of witnesses before trial and the presentation of expert witnesses by defense counsel at trial would have had on result of the murder case. Without evidence in the state court record as to how witnesses would have testified differently if they had been interviewed or as to what defense experts would have said to challenge the state’s scientific evidence, the prejudicial effect of trial counsel’s errors is highly speculative. In light of the insufficiency of the state court record, we must therefore proceed to analyze the evidence presented by Mr. Demarest at the federal evidentiary hearing and then to determine whether he has exhausted his state court remedies. 22 courts. See Granberry, 481 U.S. at 131.4 In Granberry, the Supreme Court noted that when the state answers a habeas petition, it is obligated to advise the district court whether the petitioner has exhausted all available remedies. See id. at 134. However, in instances in which the state has failed to raise a failure-to-exhaust defense in the district court proceedings, the courts of appeals may “take a fresh look at the issue,” determining “whether the interests of comity and federalism will be better served by addressing the merits forthwith or by requiring a series of additional state and district court proceedings before reviewing the merits of the petitioner’s claim.” Id. In the instant case, the state has candidly conceded that its failure to object to the testimony of Mr. Foreman and Drs. Kennedy, Vedeal, and Rehg was “an unfortunate oversight.” See Aplt’s Opening Br. at 31. Moreover, we emphasize that, in order to afford the district court a reasonable opportunity to fairly adjudicate the relevant issues in the case, the defense of failure-to-exhaust should be raised as soon as reasonably possible, a practice that the state did not follow here when it specifically objected to only the Bausch and Davidson testimony at the federal hearing. 4 We note that the AEDPA amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 change the Granberry rule with regard to cases filed after April 24, 1996. Under the amended version of § 2254(b)(3), “A State shall not be deemed to have waived the exhaustion requirement or be estopped from reliance upon the requirement unless the State, through counsel, expressly waives the requirement.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(3) (1996). In the instant case, because Mr. Demarest filed his habeas petition in federal court in 1991, we apply Granberry rather than the amended version of § 2254(b)(3). 23 Nevertheless, considering the comity and federalism interests at issue in this case, we conclude for several reasons that the state’s failure to specifically object to the testimony of Mr. Foreman and Drs. Vedeal, Rehg, and Kennedy should not be deemed a waiver of the failure-to-exhaust defense as to these witnesses. First, unlike several of the decisions that have found a waiver of the defense, the state here did not completely fail to raise the issue before the district court ruled on the petition. See Hannon v. Maschner, 981 F.2d 1142, 1146-47 (10th Cir. 1992) (declining to consider a failure-to-exhaust defense when the issue was not raised until oral argument on the motion to reconsider the order granting the writ); Stone v. Godbehere, 894 F.2d 1131, 1135 (9th Cir. 1990) (declining to consider the defense when the state failed to raise it at any point in the district court proceedings). Not only did the state object to the testimony of Ms. Bausch and Mr. Davidson (on the grounds that this testimony had not been presented to the state courts), but it also objected to the federal evidentiary hearing. See Rec. vol. I, doc. 46. In its objection, the state contended that because Mr. Demarest had been afforded an opportunity to develop his claims in the state court proceedings, an evidentiary hearing in the federal district court was improper. Although the state’s objection did not refer to the testimony of particular witnesses--a practice which would have been highly preferable if it sought to invoke the failure-to-exhaust defense--its contention that the state court record was sufficient to adjudicate Mr. Demarest’s claim and that new evidence should not be taken did raise the comity and federalism concerns on which the exhaustion 24 requirement is based. Accordingly, applying Granberry, we conclude that the state may now raise the failure-to-exhaust defense as to the referenced testimony of Mr. Foreman and Drs. Kennedy, Vedeal, and Rehg (as well as Ms. Bausch and Ms. Davidson). Cf. Caballero v. Keane, 42 F.3d 738, 741 (2d Cir. 1994) (rejecting argument that a habeas petitioner waived a failure-to-exhaust argument by failing to raise it in the federal district court proceedings because “[a]n important unresolved issue has not yet been considered by the state courts, and a procedure especially suited to air this issue is still available.”). 2. Fair Presentation of Mr. Demarest’s Claims to the State Courts Because the state did not specifically raise the defense of failure to exhaust with regard to the testimony of Mr. Foreman and Drs. Vedeal, Rehg, and Kennedy, the district court did not consider the impact of that testimony on the issue of whether Mr. Demarest’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim had been fairly presented to the state courts. However, with regard to Ms. Bausch and Mr. Davidson, the district court agreed with Mr. Demarest that their testimony was “supplementary evidence of [Mr.] Cohan’s failure to investigate.” Demarest, 905 F. Supp. at 1446. According to the district court, “The testimony [Ms.] Bausch and [Mr.] Davidson gave at the evidentiary hearing does not alter the nature of [Mr.] Demarest’s claim, nor does it significantly bolster the claim so as to substantially influence the ultimate determination of [Mr.] Demarest’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.” Id. The district court found the Bausch and Davidson testimony 25 analogous to the new evidence presented to the federal district court in Vasquez v. Hillary, 474 U.S. 254 (1986), which the Supreme Court characterized as not altering the nature of the habeas claim that had been presented to the state courts, see id. at 260. See Demarest, 905 F. Supp. at 1446. In analyzing the parties’ arguments and the district court’s conclusions, we are guided by this circuit’s decision in Jones v. Hess, 681 F.2d 688 (10th Cir. 1982), and by Fourth and Fifth Circuit decisions adopting similar reasoning, see Wise v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 839 F.2d 1030 (4th Cir. 1988); Dispensa v. Lynaugh, 826 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1987). In Jones, the habeas petitioner asserted a claim that the trial judge was biased. In the federal court proceedings, the petitioner introduced three ex parte letters from the allegedly biased judge to the prosecutor concerning the petitioner’s case. The letters had not been introduced in the state court proceedings. This circuit concluded that the judge’s ex parte letters “transformed the claim of bias and prejudice into a significantly different and more substantial claim,” placing the claim “in a significantly different and stronger posture than it was when the state courts considered it.” Jones, 681 F.2d at 693-94. The court therefore held that the petitioner’s bias claim was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. See id. at 694. The Fourth and Fifth Circuits have adopted an approach similar to Jones in concluding that new evidence presented at a federal evidentiary hearing warranted dismissal of a habeas claim for failure to exhaust. In Wise, the habeas petitioner alleged 26 that the state had withheld exculpatory evidence that a witness who testified against him at trial had entered into an agreement with state. See Wise, 839 F.2d at 1034. At the federal evidentiary hearing, the petitioner introduced for the first time the actual agreement between the state and the witness. The Fourth Circuit held that the agreement constituted new evidence that significantly altered the nature of the petitioner’s claims. As a result, the court concluded, the petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust. “The state court, which has never been presented with this critical evidence, must be given the opportunity to evaluate the claim in its new posture and to make the relevant findings of fact to which the federal courts must in turn defer.” Id. Similarly, in Dispensa, the habeas petitioner challenged the reliability of the victim’s in-court identification of him as well as the procedures used by police to elicit the victims’s pretrial, out-of-court identification. See Dispensa, 826 F.2d at 376, 379. At the federal evidentiary hearing, the petitioner offered expert testimony from a psychologist regarding the victim’s choice of words and emotional state during the incourt identification. Additionally, in the federal hearing, the habeas petitioner described the out-of-court identification procedures in a manner that differed significantly from the description he had given in the state court proceedings. The Fifth Circuit held that the habeas petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust because the petitioner’s changed testimony as well as the new expert testimony placed his claim in a significantly stronger posture than when he presented the claim to the state courts. See id. at 379-80. 27 See also Joyner v. King, 786 F.2d 1317, 1320 (5th Cir. 1986) (noting that a petitioner who presents a weak case to the state court and a strong case to the federal court fails to satisfy the exhaustion requirement); Sampson v. Love, 782 F.2d 53, 54-55, 58 (6th Cir. 1984) (dismissing habeas petition for failure to exhaust when new evidence presented in the federal hearing showed that jurors knew about petitioner’s previous sentence); Brown v. Estelle, 701 F.2d 494, 495 (5th Cir. 1983) (“Where a federal habeas petitioner presents newly discovered evidence or other evidence not before the state courts such as to place the case in a significantly different and stronger evidentiary posture than it was when the state courts considered it, the state courts must be given an opportunity to consider the evidence.”); cf. Williams v. Washington, 59 F.3d 673, 677-79 (7th Cir. 1995) (concluding that the introduction of new evidence in federal court did not contravene exhaustion requirement because new evidence merely contained information that was available from other sources contained in the state court record). In the instant case, we apply the analysis followed by Jones and similar decisions to the new evidence offered by Mr. Demarest in the federal evidentiary hearing. As explained below, consideration of the testimony of the new witnesses leads us to conclude that Mr. Demarest’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not fairly presented to the state courts. 28
In the state court hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Mr. Demarest offered testimony from his trial counsel acknowledging that he had failed to adequately investigate the case and failed to interview certain witnesses. Although trial counsel listed particular witnesses that he failed to interview, he did not mention Ms. Bausch or Mr. Davidson.5 Moreover, at no point in the state post-conviction proceedings did Mr. Demarest even mention the testimony of Ms. Bausch or Mr. Davidson or contend, as he did so vigorously in the federal proceedings, that if Mr. Cohan had interviewed them prior to trial, they would have testified in a manner that would have substantially strengthened Mr. Demarest’s defense regarding the cause of the scratches on his hand. We disagree with the district court’s conclusion that “[Ms.] Bausch and [Mr.] Davidson’s testimony [at the federal evidentiary hearing] does not significantly change the nature of [Mr.] Demarest’s allegations.” Demarest, 905 F. Supp at 1446. Ms. Bausch and Mr. Davidson’s testimony constituted significant evidence that Mr. Cohan’s failure to interview them prejudiced Mr. Demarest’s defense. As the district court itself observed, Ms. Bausch testified at the federal hearing that had Mr. Cohan interviewed her before 5 Mr. Cohan listed the following witnesses that he failed to interview: Detective Hopkins (the state’s blood-spatter expert), the state’s pathologist, the medical personnel who treated Mr. Demarest at St. Anthony’s hospital, the personnel who drove Mr. Demarest to the hospital on the day of the murder and after he collapsed during the interrogation on February 12, 1981, and the neighbor who waited with Mr. Demarest for emergency personnel to arrive. See Rec. vol. V, State v. Demarest, No. CR. 81-259, vol 3, at 17-19, 27 (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g of Dec. 2, 1985). 29 trial, he could have elicited from her testimony that she observed Mr. Demarest’s hands at the dental office on the morning of the murder but did not remember seeing scratches on his hands. In the words of Mr. Demarest’s legal expert in the federal proceedings, “the significance of [Ms. Bausch’s testimony] . . . can’t be over dramatized.” Rec. vol. III, at 216 (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g of Oct. 17, 1994). Similarly, Mr. Davidson stated that if Mr. Cohan had interviewed him before trial, he would have testified that he remembered observing Mr. Demarest pounding his hands on the gravel driveway after discovering Mr. Hyams’s body. The testimony of both these witnesses supports the contention that more thorough pretrial preparation by Mr. Cohan would have uncovered evidence that very significantly strengthened Mr. Demarest’s defense. However, because this testimony was not presented in the state post-conviction proceedings, the state courts were deprived of the opportunity to assess the prejudicial effect of Mr. Cohan’s failure to interview Ms. Bausch and Mr. Davidson. We also disagree with the district court’s conclusion that “the introduction of the additional testimony is similar to the circumstances presented in Vasquez.” Demarest, 905 F. Supp. at 1446. In Vasquez, in response to a request from a federal district court for evidence clarifying and supplementing the state court record, the petitioner submitted additional affidavits and a computer analysis to support the allegation that the state had improperly excluded African-Americans from a grand jury. See Vasquez, 474 U.S. at 258-59. The Supreme Court held that the new evidence did not circumvent the 30 exhaustion requirement. As to the new affidavits, the Court noted that they were introduced to support allegations that were already supported by evidence in the state court record. As to the computer analysis, the Court said that it added nothing that was not intrinsic to any grand jury discrimination claim. See id. at 260. Unlike the new evidence in Vasquez, the new evidence obtained from Ms. Bausch and Mr. Davidson does not merely supplement evidence in the state court record; it is more like a 180 degree turn. No evidence in the state court record indicates that a pretrial interview of these two witnesses by Mr. Demarest’s counsel would have produced credible testimony so highly favorable to his defense. Vasquez fails to support the district court’s conclusion that Ms. Bausch and Mr. Davidson’s new testimony did not significantly change the nature of Mr. Demarest’s allegations.
We reach the same conclusion as to the new testimony offered by Mr. Demarest regarding the state’s blood-spatter evidence. As noted above, in the state court proceedings, Mr. Demarest did allege that Mr. Cohan had failed to challenge the qualifications of Dr. Herbert MacDonell, the state’s first designated blood-spatter expert. Mr. Demarest also alleged that Mr. Cohan had failed to effectively cross-examine Detective Dick Hopkins, the witness who actually testified at the trial regarding the blood-spatter evidence. Additionally, Charles Hoppin, the legal expert who testified at 31 the state evidentiary hearing opined that Mr. Demarest’s trial attorney should have interviewed the state’s expert witnesses and should have consulted with an independent blood-spatter expert in order to properly evaluate and respond to the state’s evidence. See Rec. vol. V, State v. Demarest, No. CR 81-259, vol. 3 at 92-98 (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g of Dec. 2, 1985). However it was not until the federal evidentiary hearing that Mr. Demarest offered evidence from Dr. Donald Kennedy challenging the scientific basis of the state’s expert testimony. Dr. Kennedy began his testimony at the federal hearing by examining the manual on blood-spatter evidence written by Dr. MacDonell, the witness initially designated as the state’s expert. Detective Hopkins, the state witness who actually testified at trial regarding the blood-spatter evidence, attended Dr. MacDonell’s course and relied on his manual in reaching his conclusions. According to Dr. Kennedy’s testimony, the manual indicated that Dr. MacDonell lacked a basic understanding of the fluid dynamics of blood droplets. Dr. Kennedy proceeded to explain numerous specific errors in Dr. MacDonell’s manual. He criticized the experiments that it described, characterizing them as “poor high school science.” Rec. vol. II at 46 (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g of Oct. 17, 1994). He explained that Dr. MacDonell did not understand basic principles of fluid dynamics such as viscosity and surface tension. He described several measurements pertaining to the 32 fluid dynamics of blood droplets--the bond number, the Weber number, and the Reynolds number--and said that Dr. MacDonell lacked a basic understanding of these concepts. Then, Dr. Kennedy offered explanations of the ways in which Detective Hopkins’s trial testimony reflected Dr. MacDonell’s limited scientific understanding. He disagreed with Detective Hopkins’s statement that one could determine the type of weapon used by applying the principles of fluid dynamics to the blood droplets found at a crime scene. He also questioned Detective Hopkins’s opinions as to the sequence of events leading up to the murder, as to the type of weapon used, and as to the physical characteristics of the murderer (i.e. that the murderer was a strong, right-handed man), stating that fluid dynamics did not allow one to draw definitive conclusions about these matters. Essentially, Dr. Kennedy’s testimony regarding the state’s blood-spatter evidence was that the “physics are wrong, so the science is wrong, so the conclusions are wrong.” See Rec. vol. II at 64 (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g of Oct. 17, 1994). No evidence of this kind was presented in the state court proceedings. Thus, it was not until after Dr. Kennedy’s testimony in the federal court proceedings that Mr. Demarest could point to evidence that an adequate pretrial investigation by Mr. Cohan would have uncovered strong scientific evidence that could be used to challenge the state’s witnesses. Mr. Demarest’s new expert testimony from Dr. Kennedy resembles the new expert testimony offered by the petitioner in the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Dispensa, 826 F.2d at 379-80. As in that case, the new evidence offered by Mr. Demarest through Dr. Kennedy 33 and Mr. Foreman transformed his claim from one involving only general allegations of failing to investigate and cross-examine and only a minimal showing of prejudice into one involving a concrete reference to a qualified expert who could have been produced at trial to rebut the scientific basis of the state’s case. We therefore conclude that Mr. Demarest’s allegations regarding his trial counsel’s failure to challenge the state’s bloodspatter evidence were not fairly presented to the state courts.
We reach the same conclusion as to the medical and psychiatric evidence that Mr. Demarest produced at the federal evidentiary hearing to demonstrate how his mental state during the period shortly after Mr. Hyams’s murder could have been explained to the jury. At the federal hearing, Mr. Demarest presented three witnesses on this subject who did not testify in the state court proceedings: (1) Dr. Kathy Vedeal, a toxicologist, who testified about the effects of medication taken by Mr. Demarest after the murder and stated that the medication could have blurred his thinking; (2) Dr. William Rehg, a psychiatrist, who testified about Mr. Demarest’s mental state when Mr. Demarest was questioned by law enforcement officers and explained that Mr. Demarest’s highly emotional state could have been caused by feelings of shock and grief over the death of a friend; and (3) Lee Foreman, Mr. Demarest’s legal expert, who testified that Mr. Demarest’s trial counsel should have introduced medical and psychological evidence such 34 as that given by Drs. Vedeal and Rehg to explain why Mr. Demarest had difficultly giving consistent and coherent answers when he was interrogated. According to Mr. Foreman, a competent defense attorney could have used this evidence to rebut the prosecution’s contention that Mr. Demarest’s confused answers and emotional reactions reflected consciousness of guilt and to establish that Mr. Demarest had acted as would someone who had recently learned that a friend had been murdered. See Rec. vol. III at 269-272 (Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g of October 18, 1994). Like the new testimony of Ms. Bausch and Mr. Davidson and the new bloodspatter evidence, Mr. Demarest did not present this contention and supporting evidence to the state courts in the post-conviction proceedings. In the state proceedings, Mr. Demarest alleged that his trial counsel had failed to discover medical records that could have been used to challenge the voluntariness of his statements to the police, thereby providing the basis for a motion to suppress. However, Mr. Demarest never alleged in the state court proceedings that medical and psychiatric evidence could be used to explain his emotional state to the jury in a manner that supported his innocence. Thus, the testimony given by Drs. Vedeal and Rehg and by Mr. Foreman at the evidentiary hearing significantly strengthened Mr. Demarest’s contention that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present medical and psychiatric evidence to explain his emotional reactions to the jury. Thus, this aspect of Mr. Demarest’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was also not fairly presented to the state courts. 35 In summary, like the new evidence offered in the federal proceedings in Jones, Wise, Dispensa, and similar cases, the new evidence submitted to the district court by Mr. Demarest transformed his ineffective assistance of counsel claim into one that was “significantly different and more substantial.” See Jones, 681 F.2d at 693. In the state court proceedings, Mr. Demarest made general allegations concerning his trial counsel’s failure to investigate the case and interview witnesses. However, in the federal proceedings, those general allegations were supported by testimony of several witnesses concerning the prejudicial effect of his trial counsel’s deficient performance. Therefore, upon considering the new testimony of Ms. Bausch, Mr. Davidson and Mr. Foreman, and Drs. Kennedy, Vedeal, and Rehg, we conclude that Mr. Demarest has failed to exhaust his state court remedies regarding his ineffective assistance of counsel claim C. Procedural Bar Generally, when a habeas petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies, a federal court should dismiss the petition without prejudice so that those remedies may be pursued. See Jones, 681 F.2d at 694 (affirming dismissal of habeas claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust); see also Dispensa, 826 F.2d at 381 (reversing the district court’s grant of a writ and remanding the case with instructions to dismiss without prejudice). However, in considering unexhausted claims, federal courts should consider whether, upon dismissal of the claims, the petitioner would then be able to raise them in 36 the state courts. “[I]f the court to which Petitioner must present his claims in order to meet the exhaustion requirement would now find those claims procedurally barred, there is a procedural default for the purposes of federal habeas review.” Dulin v. Cook, 957 F.2d 758, 759 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n.1 (1991)). Here, Mr. Demarest filed his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the state courts pursuant to Rule 35 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 35 authorizes the state court to vacate a conviction that was imposed in violation of the laws or constitutions of the United States or Colorado. See Col. R. Crim. P. 35(c)(2)(I). Rule 35(c)(3) provides in part that “[t]he court need not entertain a second motion or successive motions for similar relief based upon the same or similar allegations on behalf of the same prisoner.” Col. R. Crim. P. 35(c)(3). Accordingly, in order to determine whether Mr. Demarest would now be procedurally barred from bringing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in state court based on the new evidence presented at the federal hearing, we must consider how the Colorado courts have interpreted Rule 35(c)(3)’s prohibition of second and successive motions. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that “‘[w]here a post-conviction application is filed, it should contain all factual and legal contentions of which the applicant knew at that time of filing, and failure to do so will, unless special circumstances exist, ordinarily result in a second application containing such grounds being summarily denied.’” 37 Turman v. Buckallew, 784 P.2d 774, 780 (Colo. 1989) (en banc) (emphasis added) (quoting People v. Scheer, 518 P.2d 833, 835 (Colo. 1974)) (emphasis added); see also People v. Hubbard, 519 P.2d 945, 948 (Colo. 1974) (en banc) (“If a second or successive motion is filed, it may be summarily dismissed without a hearing unless the trial judge finds that the failure to include newly asserted grounds for relief in the first Crim. P. 35(b) motion is excusable.”). Several Colorado decisions describe the kind of “special circumstances” that warrant the consideration of successive Rule 35 motions. The lack of counsel in post-conviction proceedings is one such special circumstance. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that “in the absence of a knowing and intelligent waiver, the assistance of counsel is essential in post-conviction proceedings, unless the asserted claim for relief is wholly unfounded.” Hubbard, 519 P.2d at 948 (citing Haines v. People, 454 P.2d 595 (Colo. 1969) and Kostol v. People, 447 P.2d 536 (Colo. 1968)). Given the convicted defendant’s right to post-conviction counsel, the Colorado Supreme Court reasoned, it is possible for a full review of the defendant’s claims to be accomplished in a single post-conviction proceeding and “no justification exists for condoning successive and often repetitive motions for postconviction relief.” Id. In contrast, when a defendant represents himself pro se, he or she cannot reasonably be expected to raise all of his or her claims in a single proceeding. See id. (“The case law recognizes that as a practical matter without the assistance of counsel, a convicted defendant would be hard-pressed to assemble into a single Crim. P. 35(b) 38 motion all of the legal arguments which might result in post-conviction relief.”). As a result, Colorado courts have allowed defendants to file successive petitions after the denial of earlier petitions filed pro se. See, e.g., People v. Naranjo, 738 P.2d 407, 409 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987) (“[S]ince [the] defendant did not have legal representation during the course of his first Crim. P. 35(c) proceeding, he is not necessarily precluded from relying upon other grounds for relief in his present motion.”). As the state here acknowledges, see Aplt’s Opening Br. at 30 n.7, another special circumstance that may warrant the consideration of a successive Rule 35 motion is the ineffective assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceedings. The Colorado Court of Appeals has held that the right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings includes the right to effective assistance of counsel under the standards established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. See People v. Hickey, 914 P.2d 377, 379 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). As a result, the Court of Appeals concluded, the failure to provide effective assistance of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding is tantamount to failing to provide counsel at all. See id. Hickey thus suggests that, like the complete absence of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding, ineffective assistance of counsel in such a proceeding may constitute a special circumstance that allows allow the court to consider a second or successive Colo. Crim. P. 35(c) motion. Id. But see People v. Goldman, 923 P.2d 374, 374-75 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996) (refusing to follow procedure adopted in Hickey--remanding Rule 35(c) proceeding to the trial court to consider claim 39 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in the Rule 35(c) proceeding--because this claim was not first raised in the trial court). In addition to the complete lack of counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel, the Colorado courts have suggested several other circumstances that may justify the consideration of successive post-conviction motions. For example, the announcement of a new legal principle after the first motion has been filed may warrant consideration of a successive motion. See People v. Allen, 843 P.2d 97, 101 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992) (“Because the defendant did not know of the changed double jeopardy legal standard when he filed his first Crim. P. 35(c) motion . . . his application for relief is not barred. . . .”), rev’d on other grounds, 868 P.2d 379 (Colo. 1994). The discovery of new evidence may also constitute a special circumstance justifying consideration of a successive motion. See Hubbard, 519 P.2d at 948. In the instant case, Mr. Demarest has offered no explanation as to why his counsel in the Rule 35(c) proceeding in state court did not present the significant new evidence that was subsequently produced at the federal hearing. Accordingly, we are unable to determine from the record before us whether Mr. Demarest’s failure to present this evidence in the state court proceedings was caused by the kind of “special circumstances,” see Turman, 784 P.2d at 780; Scheer, 518 P.2d at 835, that would allow the filing of a second or successive post-conviction motion under Col. R. Crim. P. 35. (e.g., ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, the discovery of new evidence, or 40 a change in the law). We note that the state has requested that we remand the case to the district court for a determination of whether Mr. Demarest’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on the new evidence would be procedurally barred under Colorado law. In light of the insufficient record before us, we agree that remand is warranted to address that issue.6 In the event that the district court finds that Mr. Demarest’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim (based on the new evidence discussed above) would not be procedurally barred under Colorado law, it should dismiss the claim without prejudice so that it may now be adjudicated in the Colorado courts. Alternatively, in the event that the district court finds that Mr. Demarest’s claim would be procedurally barred under Colorado law, 6 In his appellate brief, Mr. Demarest also argues that Colorado’s procedural rules should not bar federal habeas relief here because they have not been applied regularly and consistently by the state courts. See Aple’s Br. at 36-37. In order to preclude federal habeas review, a state’s procedural bar rules must be both “independent” and “adequate.” See Steele v. Young, 11 F.3d 1518, 1521-22 (10th Cir. 1993). A procedural bar rule is “independent” if it is based exclusively on state law. See id. at 1521. Although it is often difficult to determine whether a procedural bar rule is “adequate,” we have concluded that “state procedural bar rules [are] inadequate to preclude federal review where the state court has not applied the bar ‘strictly or regularly’ to the type of claim at issue.” Id. at 1522 (citing Gutierrez v. Moriarty, 922 F.2d 1464, 1469-71 (10th Cir. 1991)). Here, because the record does not indicate why Mr. Demarest did not present the testimony of Eileen Bausch, Mr. Davidson, and Drs. Vedeal, Kennedy, and Rehg in the initial state post-conviction proceedings, it is not clear whether Colorado’s procedural bar rules will apply to this case and, if they do apply, what particular rule will be triggered. Accordingly, we leave for the district court on remand the determination, if relevant, of whether the particular Colorado procedural bar rules at issue, if any, are sufficiently “adequate” and “independent” to preclude a successive ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on the new evidence. 41 the district court should proceed to determine the federal question of whether there was cause for the default and actual prejudice resulting from a violation of federal law or whether a failure to consider Mr. Demarest’s claim would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Breechen v. Reynolds, 41 F.3d 1343, 1353 (10th Cir. 1994). D. Cause and Prejudice; Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice A federal court may proceed to the merits of a procedurally defaulted habeas claim if the petitioner establishes either cause for the default and actual prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice if the merits of the claim are not reached. Klein v. Neal, 45 F.3d 1395, 1400 (10th Cir. 1995); Brecheen, 41 F.3d at 1353. The determination of cause and prejudice and of fundamental miscarriage of justice are both matters of federal law. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. at 478, 489 (1984); Klein, 45 F.3d at 1400. Cause for a procedural default generally involves “some objective factor external to the defense [that] impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with the State’s procedural rule.” Murray, 477 U.S. at 488. Cause may be established by showing that “the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available to counsel” or that there was “‘some interference by officials that made compliance impracticable.” Id. (quoting Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 486 (1953)). However, ineffective assistance of counsel in the postconviction proceedings does not constitute cause under federal law. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 757 (1991) (“Because [petitioner] had no [federal constitutional] right to counsel 42 to pursue his appeal in state habeas, any attorney error that lead to the default of [his] claims in state court cannot constitute cause to excuse the default in federal habeas.”).7 If cause is established, the petitioner must then show that he suffered actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law. See Klein, 45 F.3d at 1400; Brecheen, 41 F.3d at 1353. Alternatively, a federal court may proceed to the merits of a procedurally defaulted claim if the petitioner establishes that a failure to consider the claim would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Klein, 45 F.3d at 1400; Breechen, 41 F.3d at 1353. To come within this “very narrow exception,” Klein, 45 F.3d at 1400, the petitioner must supplement his habeas claim with a colorable showing of factual innocence. See id. Such a showing does not in itself entitle the petitioner to relief but instead serves as a “‘gateway’” that then entitles the petitioner to consideration of the merits of his claims. Brecheen, 41 F.3d at 1357 (quoting Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404 (1993)). In this context, factual innocence means that “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995); see also Murray, 477 U.S. at 496 (“[W]e think 7 As noted above, under Colorado law (which the district court should apply to determine whether Mr. Demarest’s claim would now be procedurally barred), ineffective assistance of counsel in one collateral proceeding may authorize the filing of a second or successive proceeding. See Hickey, 914 P.2d at 379. In this respect, the Colorado law that the district court must initially apply in determining whether there is a procedural bar differs from the federal law that must be applied if the district court finds a procedural bar and is then required to proceed to a determination of cause and prejudice. 43 that in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent, a federal habeas court may grant the writ even in the absence of a showing of cause for the procedural default.”). Factual innocence requires a stronger showing than that necessary to establish prejudice. Schlup, 115 S. Ct. at 867. “[T]he habeas court must make its determination concerning the petitioner’s innocence ‘in light of all the evidence, including that alleged to have been illegally admitted (but with due regard to any unreliability of it) and evidence tenably claimed to have been wrongly excluded or to have become available only after the trial.’” Id. (quoting Judge Henry Friendly, Is Innocence Irrelevant? Collateral Attack on Criminal Judgments, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 142, 160 (1970)). Accordingly, on remand, in the event that the district court finds that Mr. Demarest’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on the new evidence discussed above would be procedurally barred under Colorado law, it should then determine whether Mr. Demarest has established cause for the default and prejudice resulting from a violation of federal law or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result if his claim is not considered on the merits. In that event, if Mr. Demarest establishes either cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice, then the district court should grant his habeas petition.8 8 We note that although the state has challenged the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Demarest has exhausted his state court remedies, it has not challenged the district court’s conclusion on the merits that (in light of the new evidence) 44