UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 91-3515
FREDERICK KIRKPATRICK, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JOHN P. WHITLEY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, ET AL.,
Respondents.
ST. TAMMANY PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
Movant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana
( May 20, 1993 )
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
POLITZ, Chief Judge:
Convicted of capital murder by a Louisiana jury and sentenced
to death Frederick Kirkpatrick seeks federal habeas relief for the
second time. The district court denied relief. We now vacate and
remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether
Kirkpatrick's claims relating to prosecutorial misconduct are
supported in fact and to reconsider the abuse of the writ issue in light of the intervening decision by the Supreme Court in Sawyer v.
Whitley.1
Background
In our prior panel opinion we summarized the facts:
On the night of January 27, 1982, Frederick Kirkpatrick and Charles Faulkner were in the home of Steven Radoste, who lived alone in the Pearl River area of St. Tammany Parish. During the night, Radoste was murdered: he was struck in the head with a heavy glass object, stabbed with a butcher knife in the abdomen and chest, and shot in the head. Radoste's house was robbed, and his pickup truck was stolen. . . . Kirkpatrick confessed that he and Faulkner had driven the truck to a remote area and that he had watched Faulkner burn it. He also stated that Faulkner possessed a .22 caliber Derringer firearm2 . . . . Police seized several of Radoste's belongings from Kirkpatrick's apartment, as well as a pair of Kirkpatrick's sneakers, the sole pattern of which was matched to a bloody footprint at Radoste's home.3
Kirkpatrick, on the advice of counsel, turned down a plea offer
which would have resulted in a life sentence. Faulkner was tried
separately and sentenced to life in prison. Kirkpatrick claimed
that he stabbed Radoste in self defense. Although his version of
the events has been inconsistent, Kirkpatrick testified that he
stabbed Radoste after Radoste made, at gunpoint, unwelcome
homosexual advances.
Kirkpatrick explained his presence in Radoste's home by
1 _____ U.S. _____, 112 S.Ct. 2514, 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992).
2 The Meridian Police seized the gun from Faulkner upon his arrest. The gun belonged to the victim.
3 Kirkpatrick v. Butler, 870 F.2d 276, 277-78 (1989).
2 claiming that Radoste gave him and Faulkner a ride when they were
hitchhiking in Mississippi, and invited them to his home in
Louisiana. According to Kirkpatrick, Radoste suggested that
Kirkpatrick take a shower and then, after he finished showering,
demanded sexual favors. When Kirkpatrick refused, Radoste pulled
a gun. Kirkpatrick claims that he then grabbed a knife, while
Radoste was distracted, and stabbed him. He offered no explanation
for the two pillows found on Radoste's head nor for the bullethole
through one and the bullet in the victim's head.4
It is clear that the decedent's sexual preference was a
significant issue at trial because it bore upon the factual basis
for Kirkpatrick's claim of self defense. To rebut Kirkpatrick's
theory the prosecution called Officer McKormick, one of the
investigating officers, who testified that the only evidence found
of Radoste's sexual preference was a Playboy magazine, suggestive
of heterosexual interest. The prosecution also offered a
4 During opening statements the prosecution mused that Faulkner shot Radoste. Only Julie Yarbrough, Faulkner's girlfriend and the mother of his child, testified -- inconsistently with her prior statement contained in the police reports -- that Kirkpatrick told her that he, and not Faulkner, shot Radoste.
Kirkpatrick complains of the prosecution approaching witness Julie Yarbrough on the day of the trial to take a hair sample and fingerprints. Found at the murder scene was a bloody fingerprint on a glass and a mass of hair firmly clasped in the victim's hand. The defense was not informed that the prints and hair did not come from Radoste, Faulkner, or Kirkpatrick. The results of the test remain a mystery. We focus on the affidavits of the first two officers to arrive at the scene which precipitate our direction of an evidentiary hearing. The district court may wish to reconsider Kirkpatrick's other complaints to the extent that the evidentiary hearings may bring new light on those issues.
3 photograph depicting a crutch near the victim. Beyond the obvious
potential of generating sympathy for the victim, the crutch
pointedly tended to discount the victim's ability to present the
sort of threat that would justify the use of deadly force in self
defense. The prosecution also presented testimony of Radoste's
neighbor, David Garrett, who claimed to have seen Radoste walking
on crutches when Garrett delivered a spaghetti dinner to Radoste,
at the same time Kirkpatrick claimed to have been riding in
Radoste's car.
Kirkpatrick filed his first state court application for habeas
relief on October 17, 1984. After a limited evidentiary hearing
relief was denied. On September 19, 1984, the Louisiana Supreme
Court denied remedial writs. Kirkpatrick promptly filed his first
federal application complaining of numerous deficiencies in his
trial as well as the method of electrocution. All relief was
denied.5 We affirmed in part and vacated in part instructing the
district court to make factual findings regarding the sufficiency
of trial counsel's efforts to suppress physical evidence.6 On
remand the district court again found no basis for relief. We
affirmed.7 A second state habeas application, raising all of the
5 Kirkpatrick v. Blackburn, 597 F.Supp. 1562 (E.D.La. 1984).
6 Kirkpatrick v. Blackburn, 777 F.2d 272 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1178, 106 S.Ct. 2907, 90 L.Ed.2d 993 (1986).
7 Kirkpatrick v. Butler, 870 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1051, 110 S.Ct. 854, 107 L.Ed.2d 848 (1990).
4 points raised in this, his second federal application, won
Kirkpatrick a temporary stay of execution, but permanent relief
ultimately was denied. Although it originally scheduled an
evidentiary hearing on Kirkpatrick's claims, the state court denied
relief without holding a hearing. The Louisiana Supreme Court
again refused to hear the case.
The present federal habeas petition alleges multiple grounds
for collateral relief. The claims raised can be summarized as
follows: (1) the prosecution did not share exculpatory material
with the defense, some of which flatly conflicted with the
prosecution's presentation of the facts, suggesting that the
prosecution suborned perjury or, at least, withheld exculpatory
material despite a Brady8 request; (2) the prosecution tampered
with witnesses by improper threats; (3) Kirkpatrick received
ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) the trial court erred in the
sentencing phase when it refused to instruct the jury on the
parolability of the defendant; and (5) death in the Louisiana
electric chair is cruel and unusual punishment.
The district court, in a thorough and reasoned opinion
withheld relief under the then-controlling standards. No
evidentiary hearing was had. The court assumed the truth of the
first claim, suppression and/or knowing use of perjured testimony,
and further assumed that the claims were not barred by
8 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The state's appellate counsel candidly confirmed that Kirkpatrick's counsel had made a timely Brady request.
5 Kirkpatrick's failure to raise them in the first petition but
denied relief, concluding that neither the conviction nor the
sentence were tainted by the assumed misconduct.9 The second
claim, tampering with witnesses, was reviewed to determine whether
a different outcome would have been reached had the tampering been
disclosed -- the court answered the question in the negative. The
third claim, ineffective assistance of counsel, was dismissed for
abuse of the writ. The jury instruction, the fourth claim, was
also dismissed for abuse of the writ and alternatively for lack of
merit.10 The final claim, that Louisiana's chosen method of
execution was unconstitutional as applied, failed on its merits.
Kirkpatrick timely appealed. On appeal we review the factual
findings for clear error; mixed questions of fact and law generally
receive independent review, and questions of law are reviewed de
novo.11
Analysis
9 The court treated the report containing a prior inconsistent statement of witness Garrett, Radoste's neighbor, as a suppression issue rather than an issue relating to the knowing use of perjured testimony. The court may wish to reconsider this and other issues should an evidentiary base develop during the directed evidentiary hearing.
10 The jury sent two notes to the trial judge inquiring as to the duration of a life sentence and the possibility of parole. The judge refused to give the instruction on parole. Such an instruction is not constitutionally mandated. O'Bryan v. Estelle, 714 F.2d 365, 389 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied sub nom. O'Bryan v. McKaskle, 465 U.S. 1013, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984).
11 Baker v. Metcalfe, 661 F.2d 391 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1011 (1982).
6 Kirkpatrick makes allegations, which are substantially
supported by evidence not previously available to him, that raise
serious questions about the reliability of the prosecution's
evidence. Kirkpatrick claims that the prosecution knew: (1) that
Radoste possessed substantial hardcore homosexual pornography of
which Officer McKormick was aware; (2) that Radoste had a drawer
full of rubber gloves, which are commonly used by homosexuals;
(3) that Radoste's neighbor, David Garrett, did not see him when he
claimed to or see him on crutches at any time;12 and (4) that the
crutch was used as a stage prop for the photograph. Kirkpatrick
also claims that the prosecution tampered with witnesses by threats
and coercion.
The absence of an evidentiary hearing in either the state or
district court hampers our review of both the factual bases for
Kirkpatrick's claims and their effect, if any, on the outcome of
the trial. It is clear, however, from the affidavits of the first
two officers on the scene that neither saw a bloody crutch next to
Radoste's body or anywhere in Radoste's apartment. Moreover, they
claim that Officer McKormick himself showed them a "stack of
magazines that were filled with pictures of nude men." We focus on
the evidence which was not available to Kirkpatrick on his first
habeas petition.
12 Apparently the testimony of Garrett was the only admissible evidence of Radoste's use of a crutch. Garrett's testimony could also have been discredited by an autopsy report indicating that spaghetti was not among the contents of the victim's stomach.
7 1. Abuse of the writ
Before considering the merits of Kirkpatrick's claims, we
perforce consider whether the issues are properly before us. The
prosecution claims that Kirkpatrick's failure to raise these claims
in his first habeas petition constitutes abuse of the writ.
Rule 9(b) governing cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides:
A second or successive petition may be dismissed if the judge finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the petitioner to assert those grounds in a prior petition constituted abuse of the writ.13
The Supreme Court's recent decision in McCleskey v. Zant14 guides
our analysis. In McCleskey the habeas petitioner complained of the
admission of his statement to a cellmate. McCleskey alleged that
the fellow prisoner was an agent of the state and that placing the
agent in his cell violated his sixth amendment right to counsel as
interpreted in United States v. Massiah.15 He raised the claim in
his first state habeas petition but omitted it from his first
federal petition. It was not until his second federal habeas
13 See also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (". . . a subsequent application [by] such [a] person need not be considered by a court . . . unless the application alleges and is predicated on a factual or other ground not adjudicated on the hearing of the earlier application for the writ, and unless the court . . . is satisfied that the applicant has not on the earlier application deliberately withheld the newly asserted ground or otherwise abused the writ.").
14 499 U.S. _____, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991).
15 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964).
8 petition that McCleskey reurged the Massiah claim. The district
court granted relief but the Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding
error in the district court's failure to find an abuse of the writ.
On certiorari the Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying for the
first time the standard to be employed to ascertain abuse of the
writ. Under the regime announced in McCleskey, when there has not
been a prior determination on the merits the government bears the
initial burden of pleading and proving abuse of the writ; the
habeas petitioner must then counter that claim.
In the instant case the government met its initial burden, but
the district court assumed, for the purposes of its decision, that
Kirkpatrick successfully established that he had not abused the
writ with respect to his claims that the prosecution suborned
perjury, withheld evidence, and tampered with witnesses. Equitable
principles govern this decision and, ultimately, it rests in the
sound discretion of the district court.16 But that discretion is
not completely unfettered; the district court must recognize abuse
where it is evident. We must therefore determine whether the court
abused its discretion by not finding abuse in Kirkpatrick's failure
to raise these issues in his first federal petition.
Under the standards announced in McCleskey, abuse of the writ
consists either of the deliberate withholding of claims or
inexcusable neglect. The latter is applicable herein. The
McCleskey court adopted the cause-and-prejudice standard for
16 McCleskey, 111 S.Ct. at 1465, 113 L.Ed.2d at 538.
9 determining whether neglect is excusable. Under this standard, the
habeas petitioner first must explain his failure to present the
claim by some objective factor external to the defense which
impeded counsel's efforts to raise the claim previously and must
also demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from the error.17
Absent a showing of cause and prejudice, the failure to raise
a claim in a prior habeas petition may be overlooked only when a
constitutional violation probably has resulted in the conviction of
one innocent of the crime. Finding cause and prejudice in the
evidence presented by the two police officers, we need not reach
the issue of actual innocence. We note, however, that
Kirkpatrick's claims of self defense would establish a lack of
criminal responsibility under the test announced in Sawyer v.
Whitley.18 On remand, the district court should examine the abuse
issues in light of the new standards.
The claims of suppression and falsification of evidence were
not raised in the first federal habeas petition for obvious
reasons: the "'factual . . . basis . . . was not reasonably
available to counsel.'"19 Although Kirkpatrick's trial counsel made
17 McCleskey.
18 945 F.2d 812 (5th Cir. 1991), aff'd, _____ U.S. _____, 112 S.Ct. 2514, 2522, 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992).
19 McCleskey, 111 S.Ct. at 1470, 113 L.Ed.2d at 544 (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. at 488). The Court in McCleskey also recognized "interference by officials" as a cause for the failure to present claims in the previous habeas application. Unlike McCleskey, Kirkpatrick did not himself possess knowledge of the officers' identity or their knowledge of the events.
10 a Brady request before trial, the statements, indeed the very
identity, of the first two officers on the murder scene, were not
discovered at trial because the then-controlling state law would
not permit discovery of the initial police report. That law has
since been amended.20 Notwithstanding, that report was not produced
during the previous federal or state habeas proceedings.
While we are confident that the district court would have
allowed discovery in the first habeas proceeding had counsel reason
to request it, we recognize that in order to obtain discovery in
habeas proceedings "good cause" must be shown.21 Counsel could not
establish good cause for the production of information of which he
had no knowledge. The discovery rules do not permit the sort of
fishing expedition that would have been necessary to locate the
reports of the first two officers on the scene.22 In short, we find
much support for the district court's assumption that "cause"
existed for Kirkpatrick's failure to raise this issue in the first
federal habeas proceeding.
20 In 1984 Louisiana amended its public records provisions to provide for public examination of initial police reports. La. R.S. 44:3A(4)(a) (West Supp. 1993). The amendment took effect on September 1, 1985; Kirkpatrick was tried in 1982 and the federal district court denied his first federal habeas application in 1984.
21 Rule 6, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
22 As it is, counsel for Kirkpatrick explained at argument that he obtained the report by serendipity when a police official offered it in response to a request for other information.
11 We also agree with the district court's assumption that
Kirkpatrick met his burden of proving actual prejudice. If the
errors of which he complains are supported by the evidence adduced
at the evidentiary hearing then Kirkpatrick will have confirmed
that the prosecution presented falsified evidence and suppressed
exculpatory evidence. The presentation of falsified evidence and
the withholding of exculpatory evidence from the jury might have
led to a different result not only with respect to the sentence
imposed,23 but also to the jury's consideration of Kirkpatrick's
defense.
We therefore agree with the district court's preliminary
assumption that Kirkpatrick did not abuse the writ by failing to
raise these issues in his first federal habeas application.24
2. Falsification and suppression
We turn now to Kirkpatrick's allegations of falsification and
suppression of evidence. While we are cognizant of the toll habeas
wreaks on finality, we are also concerned that both fairness and
the appearance of fairness be preserved, especially in light of the
punishment assessed.25 In our criminal justice system the
23 During deliberations the jury sent out notes suggesting that they were inclined toward life imprisonment if parole were not possible. They were not informed that under Louisiana law there is no parole from a life sentence.
24 In light of Sawyer's teachings, the district court may wish to revisit other issues previously deemed barred.
25 See Morgan v. Illinois, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992).
12 prosecutor has at his disposal the substantial resources of the
government as well as considerable other advantages. In exchange,
that system reposes great trust in the prosecutor to place the ends
of justice above the goal of merely obtaining a conviction.26
Kirkpatrick's claims, if true, raise serious questions about
both the reality and appearance of fairness in his conviction and
punishment. We may not, absent an adequate factual record, sweep
away these charges on the assumption that the jury would not have
arrived at a different conclusion at either stage of the trial had
they been told of the matters Kirkpatrick attributes to the
prosecution. As Kirkpatrick's counsel points out, the use of
Officer McKormick's testimony with respect to Radoste's sexual
preferences, and the introduction of the photograph depicting the
crutches at the scene of the murder, may constitute knowing use of
perjured testimony and false evidence. The same may be true of the
testimony of Julie Yarbrough, the only witness to testify that
Kirkpatrick admitted shooting the victim, or David Garrett, who may
not have seen the victim on crutches or at a time when the defense
claimed that Radoste was with Kirkpatrick and Faulkner. The
cumulative effect of this scenario likewise is manifestly
uncertain.27
26 Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). See also ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.2(a)(4), 3.4(a), (b), and (f), and 3.8, all of which Kirkpatrick claims to have been violated by the prosecution.
27 See Derden v. McNeel, 978 F.2d 1453 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
13 Regardless of their label, Kirkpatrick's claims are serious
and, at least at this stage, sufficiently supported. Whether they
have firm grounding in reality remains to be seen. To the extent
that they are supported, the critical question will be whether the
prosecution simply withheld evidence or put on evidence it knew to
be false. The withholding of exculpatory information in violation
of Brady merits relief where the information is so material that
the prosecution's withholding would deprive the defendant of a fair
trial.28
We observe that different standards of materiality apply to
Brady claims and claims that the prosecution has knowingly used
perjured testimony or false evidence. The materiality standard for
Brady claims, regardless of whether the defense made a specific or
general request (or no request at all) for the withheld evidence
prior to trial,29 is as follows: "'The evidence is material only
if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been
disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would be
different. A "reasonable probability" is a probability sufficient
28 United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).
29 Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682, 105 S.Ct. at 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d at 494 (opinion of Blackmun, J., joined by O'Connor, J.); James v. Whitley, 926 U.S. 1433, 1439 (5th Cir. 1991); but see United States v. Buchanan, 891 F.2d 1436, 1441 (10th Cir. 1989).
14 to undermine confidence in the outcome.'"30 Conversely, if the
prosecutor has knowingly used perjured testimony or false evidence,
the standard is considerably less onerous: the conviction "must be
set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false
testimony could have affected the jury's verdict. . . ."31
Thus, should the evidence adduced support Kirkpatrick's claims
of perjury, the proper question is whether "there is any reasonable
likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the
judgment of the jury."32 Such a corruption of the truth-seeking
process would strike at the confidence of the conviction and
sentence. Moreover, given the unanimity required at the Louisiana
punishment phase, the proper frame of reference, at least with
regard to the punishment assessed, is whether the mind of one juror
could have been changed with respect to the imposition of the
sentence of death.33 If, on the other hand, no misconduct
appropriately is attributable to the prosecution, the court must
consider the proper context of any Brady violations it finds.
30 James, 926 F.2d at 1439 (quoting Bagley, 682 U.S. at 682).
31 Bagley, 682 U.S. at 679 n.9 (citing Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)) (emphasis added).
32 United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103 (footnote omitted).
33 Louisiana law requires unanimity in a jury's sentence of death. La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 905.6 (West 1984). We have frequently recognized the strategic value of relying on "residual doubt." E.g., Smith v. Black, 904 F.2d 950 (5th Cir. 1990), vacated, 112 S.Ct. 1463, 117 L.Ed.2d 609 (1992).
15 We express no opinion about the veracity of any of
Kirkpatrick's claims. That remains initially for the trial court.
We do note that appellate counsel disagreed about the two officers
on whose affidavits Kirkpatrick relies -- were they police officers
or emergency medical technicians? Would that make a difference?
These and other facts, and the assessment of credibility of the
witnesses are, necessarily, to be resolved by the trial court after
a hearing.34 But resolve them we must before the ultimate
punishment constitutionally may be imposed.
VACATED and REMANDED.
34 Streetman v. Lynaugh, 812 F.2d 950 (5th Cir. 1987). See also Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) (listing circumstances mandating a hearing) and its partial codification at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).