Opinion ID: 1210687
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Misunderstanding the Bases for the Dissent

Text: The concurrence argues that I am merely rehashing evidence and issues that have long been known to everyone (from day one), and that I have improperly marshal[ed] the facts in the light most favorable to Kevin Cooper. Conc. at 636. In part, this is a legal argument, contending that Cooper has not satisfied the standard for a second or successive habeas petition under § 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). In part, this is an argument almost invariably made in long-running criminal cases, contending that so many courts have gone over this case so many times that we can be confident that justice has been done. On the contrary, there are two important claims, based on newly available evidence, in Cooper's current application for habeas corpus. Both claims satisfy the requirements of § 2244(b)(2). And both claims seriously undermine any confidence that justice has been done. The first claim is that the State introduced false evidence at trial in violation of Mooney and Napue. The en banc court directed the district court to test Cooper's blood on the t-shirt for EDTA. The district court flouted that direction. If the EDTA testing had been properly performed, there would likely be important new evidence of evidence tampering by state actors. Even based on the EDTA testing that has so far been performed, there is strong evidence that Cooper's blood was planted. Further, new evidence of evidence tampering appeared during the district court hearing when it was discovered that vial VV-2, which was supposed to contain only Cooper's blood, contained blood with the DNA of two or more people. The district court refused to acknowledge the significance of this new evidence, and refused to allow any investigation into the circumstances that might have led to the blood of a second person being placed in vial VV-2. Evidence available from the EDTA testing that has been done so far, and new evidence of evidence tampering connected with vial VV-2, substantially increases the likelihood that the State presented false evidence at trial in violation of Mooney and Napue. Evidence that would be available if further EDTA testing were performed may well increase that likelihood still further. The false evidence at trial includes Josh's two recorded statements, the State's analysis of the blood contained in A-41, the Pro Ked Dude shoeprints purportedly found in the Ryen and Lease houses, the cigarettes and tobacco purportedly found in the Ryens' station wagon, and the hatchet sheath and button purportedly found in the Bilbia bedroom in the Lease house. The second claim is that the State failed to reveal exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady. Cooper's Brady claims based on new evidence are the failure to reveal Warden Carroll's information that the prison issued no shoes to prisoners that were available only in prisons; the failure to turn over the Disposition Report showing that Senior Deputy Schreckengost approved Deputy Eckley's discarding of Lee Furrow's bloody coveralls; and the failure to turn over daily logs showing the SBCSD took into custody a blue shirt that possibly had blood on it, and that there had been a report to the SBCSD shortly after midnight on the night of the murders of a white station wagon with wood sides, carrying three young males. The new evidence showing the second and third Brady violations casts new light on what had previously been knownthat Deputy Eckley had discarded the bloody coveralls without testing them and without alerting Cooper's attorneys, and that the SBCSD contended that a bloody blue shirt was never taken into custody. Based on the new evidence, we now know that the failure to make available to Cooper the bloody coveralls and blue shirt were also Brady violations. If either of the above claims is valid, Cooper has a newly available claim of innocence under Schlup or 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B). Once such a claim of innocence is properly before the district court, all of the evidence in the record must be considered, including all of the evidence previously known to the parties. See Carriger, 132 F.3d at 478. Rather than improperly marshal[ing] that evidence in the light most favorable to ... Cooper, I have described that evidence scrupulously and at length.