The Extent of Procedural Bars on Habeas Corpus

House v. Bell

This case turns, in large part, on factual/evidentiary issues, which could take a very long time to digest and are outside the aim of my reading of these opinions. If something here makes very little sense it is probably because I tried to avoid evidentiary wrangling as much as possible. Federal Habeas Corpus courts do not permit defendants to proceed on claims that would be procedurally barred in their respective state court, in deference to the finality of state court decisions. This case addresses the exception to that rule, that of an exceptional case presenting a compelling claim of actual innocence.

The story can get quite long, so here is the three sentence version. Mrs. Muncey went missing one night after her children heard a stranger’s voice telling her that her husband had suffered an accident in the creek. Mrs. Muncey was found dead in the creek and all circumstantial evidence pointed to an obscure friend, House, who was seen at the spot where Mrs. Muncey was found and whose alibi for her time of death was a scuffle between himself and his girlfriend’s ex-husband. House’ pants had blood stains and his shirt was never recovered, and Mrs. Muncey had semen stains on her nightgown.

The semen on Mrs. Muncey’s nightgown was a type A “secretor,” which secretes other substances. One secretion substance which was inconsistent with House’s DNA was attributed to degradation of type A secretions. The secretion status of Mr. and Mrs. Muncey was never determined. More nuanced tests showed that the Blood on House’s pants was a sort of type A (House, Mr. and Mrs. Muncey are all type A) consistent with Mrs. Muncey and only 6.75% of the population, and positively not that of House. There was no blood on House’s shoes and his shirt was never recovered. The defense pointed to an incident where Mr. Muncey drunkenly struck his wife and indications that she feared for her safety. The jury found House guilty. The prosecution used House’s parole status for aggravated sexual assault in Utah, the depravity of murder per se, and the involvement of (attempted) rape or kidnapping. The jury found all three aggravating factors and recommended death, which the judge imposed.

House appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. He lost. House appealed again, on nearly the same grounds. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the state considered his second appeal barred because any claim that was not raised in his first appeal was presumptively waived at that time. The federal court considered whether House’s appeal fell into an “actual innocence” exception to the procedural bar. House presented a putative confession suggesting that Mr. Muncey had committed the murder. The federal court certified state-law questions to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which went unanswered. The federal court, en banc and divided 8:7, then upheld House’s conviction.

“Claims forfeited under any state law may support federal habeas relief only if the prisoner demonstrates cause for the default and prejudice from the asserted error” (cannot be harmless error). This rule carries a miscarriage-of-justice exception. The Court notes (1) this exception requires that, in light of new evidence the prisoner can show that it is more likely than not that any reasonable juror would have reasonable doubt; (2) while new evidence is required the evidence as a whole must be evaluated; and (3) this rule is different than cases of insufficient evidence because in this case the evidence that was not presented to the jury must be evaluated by the judge. The Court rejects arguments that the AEDPA replaced the law at issue (Schlup) with a stricter test because the AEDPA does not address “a first federal habeas petition seeking consideration of defaulted claims based on a showing of actual innocence.” The Court also rejects arguments that absent a “clear error” by the lower court it must defer to that court’s decision because Schlup looks to the evidence not in the record, and because the lower court did not apply the predictive standard (how would a reasonable juror react?).

As far as the evidence is concerned, the semen has been conclusively shown to be that of Mr. Muncey, a fact which detracts from House’s motive, something the Court is unwilling to believe was inconsequential to the jury. New evidence also shows that the microscopic blood stains on House’s pants were grossly improperly handled, showing signs of deterioration that are inconsistent with blood spilling on the pants. The opinion then surveys speculation about how the evidence could end up as it did. The Court also pointed to Mr. Muncey as an alternative suspect based on his request that a friend lie about his whereabouts the night of, and the morning after the murder, as well as two people who claim to have witnessed Mr. Muncey confess. On both occasions Mr. Muncey had been drinking heavily and said that he hit his wife for yelling at him about going to the dance instead of taking her fishing and that she fell and hit her head. The rest of the evidence is brought into question as well. On a number of occasions the majority emphasizes that the inquiry at hand takes the probable reaction by a reasonable juror to the evidence as a whole, and that the decision that this case is extraordinary enough to overcome the procedural bar is not the same as an exoneration. The Court, therefore, declines to expand on the rule in Hererra that an exceedingly compelling freestanding claim of innocence would constitutionally bar an execution.

The dissent emphasizes the rule that factual findings should only be set aside on appeal for clear error, and notes that the majority did not find such a clear error. The dissent also emphasizes that the test concerns the entire jury, and requires that it be more than likely that no juror would vote to convict. The dissent points to the majority’s reliance on the combination of evidentiary issues to reach this point and tries to show that one or more of these issues was presented to the jury. The dissent also attacks numerous factual and speculative assertions by the majority.

The Long Version (if you are so inclined):

Mrs. Muncey brought her children to the neighbor’s house one afternoon and commented that her husband was out digging a grave, but that she was going to make him take her fishing the next day. She brought her children home, and they went to bed. One child testified that she heard a deep voice that sounded like her grandfather’s (not that she thought it was, but just that it sounded similar) saying to her mother that her father had been in an accident by the creek. When her father came home he took the children back to the neighbor’s so he could look for Mrs. Muncey. The next day Billy Hensly (Mrs. Muncey’s cousin) got the news that Mrs. Muncey was missing and drove down to her house. On his way he saw Mr. House “come out from under a bank wiping his hands on a black rag.” The veracity of this account came into serious question at trial. Across the street was a white car and a child walking away from it. When Hensley reached the house and saw that Mr. Muncey was not home he turned around and was flagged down by Mr. House, in the white car that Hensley had earlier seen on the side of the road. Mr. House said he was looking for Mr. Muncey, which made Hensley suspicious. Mrs. Muncey was later found dead in the creek, directly across from where the white car had been parked. She had been choked and died of a head injury. The local sheriff questioned House who falsely stated that he had spent the previous night with his girlfriend and that the scratches on his arms and hands were from her cats, and that the bruise on his knuckle was from construction work. House had left his girlfriend’s house at about 10:30, within the range of Mrs. Muncey’s estimated time of death. He had gone for a walk and was allegedly confronted by an unknown armed assailant, who House’s girlfriend speculated might have been her ex-husband. When House returned he told his girlfriend that the fight was how he got the scratches and bruise. That evening Mr. Muncey had been at a dance which he left early to go to the beer store. With House’s girlfriend’s consent the police seized House’s pants, on which the FBI found blood stains.