Walker v. Mcquiggan

Decision Date15 November 2011
Docket NumberNo. 10–1198.,10–1198.
Citation656 F.3d 311
PartiesReginald WALKER, Petitioner–Appellant,v.Greg McQUIGGAN, Warden, Respondent–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ARGUED: Jonathan Sacks, State Appellate Defender Office, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Janet A. Van Cleve, Michigan Attorney General's Office, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jonathan Sacks, State Appellate Defender Office, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Raina Korbakis, Michigan Attorney General's Office, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.Before: KEITH, CLAY, and COOK, Circuit Judges.CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which KEITH, J., joined. COOK, J. (pp. 322–24), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

OPINION

CLAY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Reginald Walker, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, appeals the January 14, 2010 denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 1, 2001, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder, Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.316, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.227b, in the shooting death of Larry Troup. Petitioner claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to investigate and present an insanity defense, despite being aware of Petitioner's long and well-documented history of severe mental illness.

For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE the decision of the district court and GRANT Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus.

BACKGROUND
I. The Murder of Larry Troup

Near midnight on the evening of April 11, 2000, inside a liquor store on the northwest side of Detroit, Petitioner Reginald Walker fired several gunshots at Larry John Troup—a complete stranger—killing him. The Michigan Court of Appeals summarized the testimony recounting the events of that night as follows:

The prosecution presented testimony that at about midnight, Walter Gaiter and Troup entered the store to purchase some beer. After paying for the beer at the checkout counter, Gaiter leaned back into defendant, who was behind them. After Gaiter apologized for bumping into defendant, defendant told him that he did not like being touched, which defendant repeated after he paid for his purchases. Pausing, defendant then pulled an automatic handgun from under this [sic] jacket and fired three or four shots, killing Troup instantly. Neither Gaiter nor Troup was armed. Defendant then picked up the clip that had fallen to the floor, put it in his pocket, and walked out the store.People v. Walker, No. 233494, 2003 WL 133057, at *1 (Mich.Ct.App. Jan. 3, 2003).

The defense presented a radically different version of events at trial, in support of its contention that Walker acted both by accident and in self-defense:

Testifying in his own behalf, defendant maintained that he did not intend to kill anyone that night. During the late afternoon and evening before going to the store, defendant consumed two 40 ounce bottles of beer and a significant quantity of vodka. Defendant testified that he went to Sam's Drugs to buy liquor and cigarettes, and was standing in line behind Gaiter and Troup. According to defendant, he was wearing about $1,500 in jewelry when Gaiter put his arm around him and said, “That's some nice jewelry you got on, man, old man.” Defendant further testified that Gaiter had his hand in his pocket when he commented about defendant being drunk and that he could get robbed. When Gaiter then tried to force defendant into one of the aisles, Troup, showing him a pistol in his belt, told defendant not to run. According to defendant, Troup then bumped him. In response, defendant pulled his pistol from his waist area. At the same time, Gaiter pulled out a gun and shot defendant, hitting him in the hand. Because defendant's hand was on the trigger, his gun went off. According to defendant, he did not know that Troup had been shot.

Id.

After the shooting, Walker proceeded to a semi-abandoned house in the neighborhood. He punched a hole in the drywall in the bathroom and placed the gun inside. Police received information from the store clerk, Ronald Yaldo, which led them to the house, where they arrested Walker.

All forensic evidence, at the scene of the shooting and in the house where Walker was found, pointed to Walker as the shooter. The police also determined that neither Troup nor his companion in the liquor store, Gaiter, were carrying weapons at the time of the shooting. Lastly, there was no forensic evidence to indicate that Walker had been shot during the incident.1

At trial, Yaldo, the store clerk present at the shooting, and Gaiter, Troup's friend, both testified consistent with the prosecution's presentation. In brief, both testified that Troup and Gaiter made a purchase at the counter; decided to buy something else and went back into the store's aisles, during which time Gaiter accidentally bumped into Walker; words were exchanged between the three men in a normal tone of voice; Walker paused and shot Troup; Walker picked up an ammunition clip, which had fallen out of the gun during the shooting, and then walked out of the store at a regular pace. (R. 10–3: Yaldo Tr. at 3–24.)

II. Walker's Defense at Trial

On March 1, 2001, Walker was convicted by jury of first degree murder, in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.316, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.227b. At trial, Walker admitted to shooting the decedent, Larry John Troup, and presented a mixed defense of accident, self-defense and intoxication. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for murder, and two years for the felony firearm charge.

Walker's trial counsel, William Winters (Counsel), was the third attorney either retained by or appointed to Walker. Prior to Counsel coming onto the case, Walker's previous attorney had filed a notice of intent to pursue an insanity defense.2 Following from this notice, the trial court ordered a competency/diminished capacity examination of Walker, which was performed by Dr. Dexter Lee Fields, a psychiatrist at the Wayne County Circuit Court Psychiatric Clinic. Dr. Fields had, on several prior occasions, examined Walker in conjunction with other court cases.3

After examining Walker, Dr. Fields concluded that Walker was criminally “responsible, and that he was not diminished in his ability to form the intent to commit the offense.” (R. 11–2: Fields Tr. at 64.) Though, under Michigan law, defense counsel had the option to request a clinical evaluation by an independent psychiatrist of his choice, see Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 768.20a(3) (West 2001), Counsel chose not to do so. Counsel testified that he made this decision because he “did not believe that a defense of insanity in this case would be successful. Now, there is no legitimate reason for not asking, because ... Mr. Walker [was] entitled to have an independent exam.” (R. 11–2: Winters Tr. at 80.)

Counsel then chose to abandon an insanity defense, instead opting for the mixed accident/self-defense/intoxication theory eventually presented to the jury. Counsel's stated rationale for doing so was that: 1) an insanity defense “put[ ] the burden on the defense to show by a preponderance,” 2) [he] was afraid of a compromised verdict [of guilty but mentally ill 4 ],” 3) he was concerned about opening the door to evidence from an assault charge pending against Walker being admitted, and 4) he thought that “it would be a difficult proposition to get the jury to believe [it].” (R. 11–2: Winters Tr. at 85–86.)

At the time that Counsel made this decision, there is no dispute that he was aware that Walker had a significant history of mental illness, and that “Mr. Walker had written numerous letters [to him] indicating his mental history, the fact that at times he had heard voices.” ( Id. at 81.) Furthermore, Counsel testified that Walker may have told him, shortly after the shooting, that he had been hearing voices on the day of the incident. ( Id.) Counsel was also aware that the evidence that would be presented at trial—namely, the eyewitness testimony of the store clerk and Gaiter, the lack of weapons at the scene attributable to either Gaiter or Troup, and the absence of a wound on Walker consistent with having been shot—all directly contradicted the defense of accident/self-defense that he presented.

III. State Direct and Collateral Review

In his appeal as of right, Walker raised a single claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Walker alleged that his attorney failed to investigate or raise an insanity defense, although Walker had an extensive history of severe mental illness.

The Michigan Court of Appeals found that Walker had received deficient representation from his trial counsel, based on counsel's objectively unreasonable failure to investigate whether an insanity defense might be available to Walker. On January 3, 2003, the court of appeals issued an order remanding the case to the trial court for a determination of whether Walker was prejudiced by his counsel's failure. Walker, 2003 WL 133057.

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, known in Michigan as a Ginther hearing, on the question of prejudice. At the Ginther hearing, Walker's appellate counsel presented testimony regarding Walker's history of mental illness. Forensic psychologist Dr. Steven Miller testified that Walker's medical records reflect that Walker began receiving treatment for mental health problems when he was approximately sixteen years old.5 (R. 10–21: Miller Tr. at 20.)

Beginning in 1983, Walker was hospitalized several times for “schizophrenic type” ailments, including “severe depression, mental confusion ... [and] hallucinating,” at more than half a dozen hospitals and treatment facilities. ( Id. at 21.) From 1983, until...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • White v. White
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • 16 Septiembre 2021
    ...Shinn v. Kayer, 141 S.Ct. 517, 523 (2020) (quoting Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 (2009)). See also Walker v. McQuiggan, 656 F.3d 311, 323 (6th Cir. 2011) (“... the Supreme Court's Strickland guidelines provide us only minimal direction. But in a habeas case, such generality neces......
  • Bowling v. Parker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • 2 Abril 2012
    ...Stegall, 385 F.3d 993, 998 (6th Cir.2004) (quoting Hill v. Hofbauer, 337 F.3d 706, 717 (6th Cir.2003)); see also Walker v. McQuiggan, 656 F.3d 311, 321 & n. 8 (6th Cir.2011) (relying on Sixth Circuit precedent to determine that Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed......
  • Leonard v. Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 6 Marzo 2013
    ...habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or could have supported the state court's decision." Walker v. McGuiggan, 656 F.3d 311 (6th Cir. 2011), vacated on other grounds Howes v. Walker, 132 S. Ct. 2741, 183 L. Ed. 2d 32 (2012), quoting Harrington, 131 S. Ct. at 786.......
  • Blankenburg v. Miller, Case No. 1:16-cv-505
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 19 Junio 2017
    ...court must determine what arguments or theories supported or . . . could have supported the state court's decision." Walker v. McQuiggan, 656 F.3d 311, 318 (6th Cir. 2011), vacated on other grounds Howes v. Walker, 132 S. Ct. 2741, 183 L. Ed. 2d 32 (2012), quoting Harrington, 131 S. Ct. at ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT