Clifford Henry Bowen v. Gary D. Maynard, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary

799 F.2d 593, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26389
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedJune 25, 1986
Docket86-1136
StatusPublished
Cited by108 cases

This text of 799 F.2d 593 (Clifford Henry Bowen v. Gary D. Maynard, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clifford Henry Bowen v. Gary D. Maynard, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, 799 F.2d 593, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26389 (10th Cir. 1986).

Opinion

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.

Clifford Henry Bowen has been incarcerated in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary under three death sentences for over five years. Convicted of a triple murder, Bowen maintains his innocence and argues that the State of Oklahoma violated his federal constitutional rights when it failed to disclose to the defense certain material concerning an early suspect in the case. Having considered the withheld material, we hold that it casts such grave doubt on the convictions that they cannot be permitted to stand. The prosecution had a federal constitutional duty to reveal the material *596 either with or without a specific request by the defense. We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling that the convictions are constitutionally infirm.

I.

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Bowen was arrested on August 28, 1980 and pled not guilty to an information charging him and Harold Behrens with three counts of first degree murder in violation of Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 21, § 701.7 (West 1983). Behrens was convicted first in a separate trial and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. See Behrens v. Oklahoma, 699 P.2d 156 (Okla.Crim.App.1985).

The case against Bowen was tried to a jury before Oklahoma County District Judge Raymond Naifeh. The jury returned three guilty verdicts and recommended death sentences on each count. Bowen filed a motion for new trial and then an amendment to that motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Judge Nai-feh overruled the motion and signed the death warrants.

While his appeal was pending before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Bowen filed in that court a second motion for new trial alleging newly-discovered evidence and the failure to disclose exculpatory material. The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the matter to the trial court to determine if an evidentiary hearing was appropriate. Judge Naifeh conducted hearings and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law overruling the second motion. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Bowen’s convictions. See Bowen v. Oklahoma, 715 P.2d 1093 (Okla. Crim.App.1984). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, see Bowen v. Oklahoma, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 3537, 87 L.Ed.2d 660 (1985), and the Court of Criminal Appeals set Bowen’s execution for August 12, 1985.

Bowen filed a petition for a writ of habe-as corpus and an application for stay of execution in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. He alleged denial of due process by the prosecution’s withholding of exculpatory evidence and denial of effective assistance of counsel. United States District Judge Thomas R. Brett granted the stay and held an evidentiary hearing intended to supplement evidence taken in the state proceeding.

The federal district court filed an opinion and findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court set aside Bowen’s convictions and issued the writ of habeas corpus, although it held that the State may re-try Bowen for the triple murder. The court based its decision on the withheld evidence and declined to reach the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court thereafter denied the State’s motion to stay Bowen’s release pending appeal. The court provided several conditions for his release, including that Bowen be required to post a $100,000 appearance bond. The court stayed the effect of its decision pending disposition of a stay motion in this court. This panel heard oral argument on the State’s motion to stay and denied the motion but stayed the effect of our order for seven days. Justice White stayed the writ of habeas corpus pending appeal before this court.

On the merits of its appeal, the State contends that (1) the federal district court erred in finding that the defense made a specific oral request for a list of other suspects, and (2) the withheld material is not exculpatory within the meaning of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny.

B. The Guest House Murders

A notorious triple murder occurred in Oklahoma City on July 6, 1980 at approximately 2:00 a.m. Ray Peters, Lawrence Evans, and Marvin Nowlin were fatally shot as they sat around a poolside table at the Guest House Inn motel. Although the murder weapon was not found, bullets and *597 shell casings recovered at the scene revealed that a .45 caliber automatic weapon with silver-tipped, hollow point bullets had been used. Several witnesses related that an unfamiliar man had been seen in the pool concession area before the shooting and that, after gunshots were heard, he ran and fled in a waiting vehicle.

Other information pointed in the direction of Harold Dean Behrens. Formerly a detective with the Oklahoma City Police Department, Behrens made his living selling drugs at the time of the crime. Ray Peters, alleged by the State to be the primary victim, worked for Behrens as a drug dealer. The month before his death, Peters had been arrested in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma on drunk driving and drug charges. Behrens had gotten Peters out of jail and was allegedly concerned about the excessive use of whiskey and Dilaudid by Peters, the loss of profits due to Peters’ consumption of the goods, and the possibility that Peters would inform on him to the authorities. A short time before the shooting, Behrens and his lover Herman Borden had been sitting at the poolside table with Peters and various other people including the identification witnesses. Upon leaving the table and in full view of the stranger lurking in the concession area, Behrens put his hand on Peters’ shoulder and said he would see him tomorrow. Jack Zumwalt, Beh-rens’ former lover, testified at trial that it was not Behrens’ custom to make physical contact with people upon parting company. The State argued that Behrens’ gesture “fingered” Peters for the hit man.

Based on descriptions of the man seen in the pool area before the shooting, provided primarily by Mary Lee Chilton and Carrie Pitchford, a police flyer was circulated containing a composite sketch and bearing the following caption:

“SUSPECT WANTED FOR THE TRIPLE HOMICIDE OCCURRING AT THE GUEST HOUSE MOTEL AT 5200 N. CLASSEN AT 2:00 A.M. ON 7/06/80.
“SUSPECT: WM/50, 6' 1", 210-250#, POT BELLIED, SALT AND PEPPER HAIR BEING MEDIUM LENGTH, WEARING A RED BASEBALL CAP, LONG SLEEVED BLUE SHIRT, FADED BLUE JEANS, BROWN WORK BOOTS LACED UP, HAVING A WEEK’S GROWTH BEARD.
“WEAPON USED: .45 CAL COLT AUTOMATIC
“AMMUNITION: WINCHESTER-WESTERN HOLLOW POINTS
“IF SUSPECT IS LOCATED, PLACE IN JAIL ON ABOVE CHARGE AND CONTACT DET. BOB HORN IN HOMICIDE DETAIL.”

Def. trial ex. 1.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Faulkner v. State Smith v. State
227 A.3d 584 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2020)
(HC) Young v. Lozano
E.D. California, 2020
John Floyd v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
887 F.3d 214 (Fifth Circuit, 2018)
United States v. Bagcho
151 F. Supp. 3d 60 (District of Columbia, 2015)
Sharp v. Rohling
793 F.3d 1216 (Tenth Circuit, 2015)
Madrid v. Wilson
590 F. App'x 773 (Tenth Circuit, 2014)
Anibal Canales, Jr. v. William Stephens, Director
765 F.3d 551 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Private E1 KEITH R. HAWKINS
73 M.J. 605 (Army Court of Criminal Appeals, 2014)
United States v. Bergman
746 F.3d 1128 (Tenth Circuit, 2014)
Green v. Lee
964 F. Supp. 2d 237 (E.D. New York, 2013)
Wolfe v. Clarke
819 F. Supp. 2d 574 (E.D. Virginia, 2011)
United States v. Crabbe
424 F. App'x 782 (Tenth Circuit, 2011)
Case v. Hatch
773 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (D. New Mexico, 2011)
United States v. Quinn
537 F. Supp. 2d 99 (District of Columbia, 2008)
Garcia v. Portuondo
466 F. Supp. 2d 488 (S.D. New York, 2006)
Graves v. Quarterman
210 F. App'x 429 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
State v. Parker
198 S.W.3d 178 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2006)
Kiley v. United States
260 F. Supp. 2d 248 (D. Massachusetts, 2003)
Taylor v. State
93 S.W.3d 487 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
799 F.2d 593, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifford-henry-bowen-v-gary-d-maynard-warden-oklahoma-state-ca10-1986.