Opinion ID: 6111053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Current Petition and Factual Allegations

Text: In his petition, Scott requests permission to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that there was prosecutorial misconduct committed by Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Joseph Boeckmann. Scott asserts that he was prosecuted because he refused Boeckmann's sexual advances. Scott further contends that he was victimized by Boeckmann and suffered the burden of undue criminal charges and punishments. Scott first makes claims regarding an alleged rape charge and contends that on October 24, 1995, he was being held on a rape charge. Scott alleges that he interacted with Boeckmann, who released Scott and stated, that a warrant had not been issued for this person. Additionally, Scott contends that on October 27, 1995, he went to the Municipal Court Building to talk to Boeckmann about what had occurred a few days earlier. At this point, Scott contends that Boeckmann propositioned me indicating that I owed him for doing me a favor. He wanted me to submit to a sexual act, but I flatly refused and left. It was at this point that a number of unexplained extraordinary events began. Scott contends that on March 25, 1996, he was arraigned on murder charges, and Boeckmann stated that Scott had a rape charge pending in the same court. The circuit court ruled that it did not have a rape-case file and that it had been lost or misplaced. Scott contends that this notice of the rape charge was an utter surprise, and although he subsequently obtained the documents supporting the rape charge, the documents were unsigned and a fabrication of events. In addition, Scott asserts that in his murder investigation, Boeckmann knowingly suppressed evidence in violation of his due-process rights-Scott's Lakers jersey and his hiking boots-that were relevant to the shooter's identification at trial. Scott also contends that in late March 1997, Boeckmann knowingly provided Scott with eyewitness statements by a law enforcement officer. In sum, Scott alleges witness tampering, Brady violations, tampering and fabrication of evidence. Scott contends that this new evidence regarding Boeckmann adversely affect[ed] my case, violating due process, and sheds light onto  how he did so.... Boeckmann's attempts to manipulate and even threaten witnesses against him makes me believe he did the same as a deputy prosecuting attorney.... I was very much disturbed to discover, after reading about another victim in the 1980s facing criminal charges, that Boeckmann had done to him exactly what he did to me after rebuffing his sexual advances: manipulate the legal system to exact a harsh punishment. Unfortunately, Boeckmann's actions were known to be mirrored by Officer Spears, wherein he too used his police office and powers to manipulate [people] to perform sexual favors under the guise of clearing fees. The crux of Scott's ground for the writ in all of his petitions-including the one now under consideration-allege prosecutorial misconduct concerning witness statements and prosecutorial misconduct. See Scott v. State , 2010 Ark. 363 , 3-5, 2010 WL 3796227 . Scott relies on Strawhacker v. State , 2016 Ark. 348 , 500 S.W.3d 716 , for the proposition that where the record shows the government itself has conceded the potential for reliance on tainted evidence at trial, coram nobis is an appropriate remedy in assessing whether the repudiated evidence warrants relief from the conviction. In Strawhacker , the Department of Justice informed the prosecuting attorney that FBI witness Michael Malone's testimony regarding microscopic hair comparison analysis contain[ed] erroneous statements. The Department further stated that Malone had overstated the conclusions that may appropriately be drawn from a positive association. Strawhacker , 2016 Ark. 348 , at 3, 500 S.W.3d 716 , 718 (alteration in original). The FBI then informed Strawhacker that the prosecutor in your case(s) has advised the Department of Justice that Michael Malone's work was material to your conviction. We granted the petition to reinvest jurisdiction and explained: We acknowledge that Strawhacker's claim may not neatly fall within one of the four established categories. But these categories are not set in stone. We have expanded the coram-nobis remedy in the past. See Penn v. State , 282 Ark. 571 , 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984). We emphasized that expanding the grounds for the writ was necessary to ensure due process and to provide a state remedy where none exists: The growth of the writ is attributable, certainly, to a variety of causes. A great force in its development has been that growing concept, due process of law. The federal courts now show little hesitation in overturning state convictions if a state has no remedy or refuses to exercise it where a defendant has been denied due process of law. And where the federal decisions reflect a procedural gap in a state whereby a defendant denied due process of law is remediless without recourse to the federal courts, the courts of that state may utilize coram nobis to fill the void. Id. at 575 , 670 S.W.2d at 429 (citing John H. Haley, Comment, Coram Nobis and the Convicted Innocent , 9 Ark. L. Rev. 118 (1955)). These concerns are present here. Id. at 6, 500 S.W.3d at 719 . Scott asserts that the record of the proceedings with the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission and the United States District Court would provide conclusive support for Scott's argument that Boeckmann engaged in misconduct and criminality during the course of his employment with the State and satisfies the Strawhacker holding that the government has conceded wrongdoing based on Boeckmann's actions. Scott urges this court to grant permission to reinvest  jurisdiction, which will permit Scott to investigate and develop his claims. Additionally, he requests that the court extend its holding in Strawhacker to include an allegation that Scott's refusal of sexual advances satisfies the prosecutorial-misconduct claim. We do not find merit in Scott's arguments. First, Scott does not satisfy any ground for granting the writ because he does not allege that there was any evidence extrinsic to the record that was hidden from the defense or that was unknown at the time of trial. Larimore v. State , 327 Ark. 271 , 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997). Second, Scott fails to offer facts sufficient to warrant granting leave to proceed in the trial court for the writ. See Jackson , 2017 Ark. 195 , at 7, 520 S.W.3d at 247 . The application for coram nobis relief must make full disclosure of specific facts relied on as the basis for the writ. Martinez-Marmol v. State , 2018 Ark. 145 , 544 S.W.3d 49 . Here, Scott makes allegations but does not offer factual support for his claims. Additionally, Scott has failed to demonstrate prejudice. Despite Scott's allegations of egregious conduct on Boeckmann's part, Scott has not demonstrated prejudice because Scott has failed to demonstrate Boeckmann's involvement in witness statements in this case. Further, Scott has failed to identify evidence that contradicts the initial eyewitness statements that identified Scott as the shooter. The record also demonstrates that eyewitnesses testified at trial and identified Scott as the shooter. In other words, despite Boeckmann's alleged conduct, Scott has not demonstrated that the witnesses who initially identified him had been influenced before making those statements or that the result at trial would have been different. Finally, Scott offers no proof that the State suppressed any specific evidence pertaining to Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Boeckmann. Mosley v. State , 2018 Ark. 152 , 544 S.W.3d 55 (holding that a Brady violation occurs if the defense was prejudiced because the State wrongfully withheld evidence from the defense prior to trial). Davis v. State , 2019 Ark. 20 , at 6-7, 566 S.W.3d 111 , 115-16. Petition denied; motion to file reply granted; 1 motion to appoint counsel moot.