Court Opinion

ID: 9492759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:50:07.354925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:29.166823
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
While in custody, Hertlein admitted to at least four people that he was an active participant in' the murder of Mark Trader. I cannot excuse counsel’s failure to present this evidence to the trial court as simply an acceptable trial strategy. Had this evidence been presented, the trial court would have had reason to admit the evidence referred to in footnote three of the majority’s opinion — evidence that was consistent with Mansfield’s theory of defense.
As explained by the majority, Mansfield presented an alibi defense at trial. Clearly in such a defense, evidence of another’s motive and opportunity to commit the crime is of great importance, for it provides the jury with an explanation of who, if not the defendant, may be guilty. However, under Missouri law at the time of Mansfield’s trial, he was prohibited from presenting evidence of another’s motive and opportunity to commit the crime unless he could provide the trial court with some direct link connecting the alleged perpetrators to the crime. See State v. Umfrees, 483 S.W.2d 284, 287-88 (Mo.1968) (en banc).
Mansfield had an abundance of evidence which tended to prove that Hertlein, Couz-ens, and Howerton had both a motive to commit the murder and the opportunity to do so. However, as stated above, under Missouri law this evidence was inadmissible without some other evidence directly linking them to the crime.
Such evidence was available in this case, but Mansfield’s counsel failed to present it. Officer Cavanah’s police report details his interviews with four inmates, Joseph Snod-grass, Leonard Berryman, Nick Nichols, and Jessie Kessler, each of whom indicated to him that Hertlein admitted involvement in the murder while in jail with them. According to Cavanah,
Snodgrass stated that the other person who was talking believed to [be] Hertl[ei]n made many statements about the homicide as if he knew about it. He made the statement that the suspect [sic] had been stabbed 21 times. It was obvious to him that Hertl[ei]n knew about the murder as if he were there.
Berryman stated something about putting the dude in a cab and three of them followed him to his house. Hertl[ei]n stated that all 3 of them got out and each one stabbed him. He stated that [Mansfield] played dumb as if he did not know what was going on. He stated that he told [Mansfield] that [Hertlein] was involved by the way he was talking.
Nichols stated that Hertl[ei]n stated that we all stabbed him. He stated that [Hertlein] stated that he was involved and that he and two others stabbed the victim....
Kessler stated that he heard Hertl[ei]n say that he stabbed him 9 times and that a couple other people helped him watch.
(Appellant’s Add. at 39-40.)
To consider these statements equivocal and contradictory requires an overly critical reading of the statements. All of the inmates agreed that Hertlein’s statements made it clear that he was involved; three of the inmates noted that Hertlein was bragging about personally stabbing the victim. Although there are inconsistencies among the statements, one would expect *1025such an outcome from different witnesses, each relating his recollection of the events. Moreover, despite their minor differences, all the statements have a common thread: all directly link Hertlein to the crime, meeting Missouri’s threshold evidentiary requirement. In such a context, it is indisputable that not presenting the police report in question to the trial court was deficient conduct by counsel.
The majority regards these confessions by Hertlein to be of little probative value, in part because Hertlein testified about them at trial. I disagree. During his trial testimony, Hertlein admitted that he told his fellow inmates that he was being held for first degree murder, but claimed he was doing so as part of a plan to elicit a confession from Mansfield. Standing alone, this would likely not satisfy the Umfrees standard. However, Hertlein’s statements in the police report contain a disturbing amount of detail of the crime, calling into question Hertlein’s professed innocence, and at the very least directly linking him to the crime. Thus, had the police report been presented to the trial court, it would have provided a sufficient link between Hertlein and the crime for the trial court to have then properly admitted motive and opportunity evidence.
Failing to present the police report to the trial court was deficient performance under the familiar test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Because I believe that counsel’s failure to present this evidence produced an unreliable result, Mansfield’s petition should be granted.7

. The other evidence introduced against Mansfield was weak. Most of the incriminating evidence was provided by Hertlein, How-erton, and Couzens, the same three individuals whom Mansfield claimed were the true perpetrators. Thus, had evidence of their motive and opportunity to commit the murder been admitted, the jury may well have discredited their testimony as self-serving. That being the case, the most damaging independent testimony against Mansfield would have been the cabdriver's eyewitness identification, which was impugnable because it was inaccurate.