Adkins v. Warden, Holman CF

• Decision Date: 16 April 2013
• Docket Number: No. 11–12380.,11–12380.
• Citation: 710 F.3d 1241
• Parties: Ricky D. ADKINS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. WARDEN, HOLMAN CF, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Respondents–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

710 F.3d 1241

Ricky D. ADKINS, Petitioner–Appellant,

v.WARDEN, HOLMAN CF, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Respondents–Appellees.

No. 11–12380.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 27, 2013.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 16, 2013.

Stephen Brooks Bright (Court–Appointed), Raoul Dieter Schonemann (Court–Appointed), Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta, GA, for Petitioner–Appellant.

Beth Jackson Hughes, Andrew Lynn Brasher, Atty. General's Office, Montgomery, AL, Respondents–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

MARTIN, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner Ricky Adkins, an Alabama prisoner on death row, appeals from the District Court's denial of his first petition for writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court granted Mr. Adkins a Certificate of Appealability (COA) for the following issues: (1) whether the state unconstitutionally removed black jurors on the basis of their race in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); and (2) whether Mr. Adkins was denied his constitutional rights to fair proceedings and due process because of a judicial conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety. This Court granted Mr. Adkins's request to expand the COA to include a third issue: whether his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his trial. Because we determine that Mr. Adkins is entitled to habeas relief based on his Batson claim, we do not decide his other claims.

I. Background and Legal Presentation of the Claim

The body of Billie Dean Hamilton, a real estate agent who was Caucasian, was discovered in St. Clair County, Alabama, on January 18, 1988. See Adkins v. State, 600 So.2d 1054, 1057, 1059, 1060–61 (Ala.Crim.App.1990)( Adkins I);Ex parte Adkins, 600 So.2d 1067, 1069 (Ala.1992)( Adkins II). Right away, Mr. Adkins, also white, was arrested and charged with capital murder for Hamilton's death. Id.

Jury selection began on October 24, 1988. During that process, the state exercised nine of its twenty-four peremptory strikes to remove nine of eleven black veniremembers. Adkins II, 600 So.2d at 1069. Mr. Adkins struck one of the two remaining black jurors, and ultimately, only one black juror served on the jury. Id. At the time of Mr. Adkins's trial, the rule in Alabama was that a white defendant, like Mr. Adkins, lacked standing to challenge the state's exercise of peremptory strikes to remove black jurors from the panel. See, e.g.,Owen v. State, 586 So.2d 958, 959 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), rev'd sub. nom. Ex parte Owen, 586 So.2d 963 (Ala.1991). For this reason, there was neither an objection by the defense nor a proffer of reasons by the prosecutor for striking the nine black jurors.

The jury convicted Mr. Adkins of capital murder and sentenced him to death. See Adkins I, 600 So.2d at 1056. On August 24, 1990, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. Id. at 1067. Before Mr. Adkins sought review in the Alabama Supreme Court, see Adkins II, 600 So.2d 1067, the United States Supreme Court delivered its ruling in Powers v. Ohio, holding “that a criminal defendant may object to race-based exclusions of jurors effected through peremptory challenges whether or not the defendant and the excluded juror share the same races.” 499 U.S. 400, 402, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 1366, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991). Following Powers, Mr. Adkins raised a Batson claim in his petition for writ of certiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court. Adkins II, 600 So.2d at 1069. The Alabama Supreme Court granted Mr. Adkins's petition and remanded his case to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals for further proceedings. Id. (citing Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112, 117 (Ala.1991), aff'd on remand,625 So.2d 1141 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), rev'd on other grounds,625 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1993)).¹ The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals then remanded Mr. Adkins's case to the trial court for a Batson hearing on June 12, 1992, with the direction, “[d]ue return should be filed with this court within 90 days from the date of this opinion.” Adkins v. State, 600 So.2d 1072, 1073 (Ala.Crim.App.1992)( Adkins III). The return was thus due on September 10, 1992.

The state trial court held the Batson hearing on July 29, 1992. During that hearing, the prosecutor proffered reasons for striking each of the nine black jurors, which the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals summarized as follows:

Prospective juror number 59 ... was struck because he came forward and asked that he be excused from serving on the jury. He was 61 years old and had ulcers.

Prospective juror number 39 [Billy Morris] ... was struck because he answered during the voir dire that he knew about the case and because he was also single.

Prospective juror number 8 ... was struck because she stated that she knew about the case. The prosecutor also had information that she was married to or lived with an individual he had prosecuted.

Prospective juror number 52 ... was struck because of his age and because he was single. He also appeared inattentive and seemed disinterested during voir dire.

Prospective juror number 36 ... was struck because she was 53 and single. She was also unemployed and asked to be excused from serving on the jury because she had high blood pressure.

Prospective juror number 31 ... was struck because she was single and because she was known to associate with a former local chief of police who had been forced to resign.

Prospective juror number 56 ... was struck because he was 86 years old and because he indicated that he knew defense counsel.

Prospective juror number 14 ... was struck because she was single and because she worked for the Department of Human Resources (DHR) and the district attorney's office had frequent dealings with her in her capacity as a DHR employee.

Prospective Juror number 60 ... was struck because her father had a federal conviction for a drug-related crime.

Adkins v. State, 639 So.2d 515, 517 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (AdkinsIV), withdrawn,Ex parte Adkins, 662 So.2d 925 (Ala.1994) (unpublished table decision).² Also during the Batson hearing, the prosecutor's notes from the voir dire were admitted into evidence as exhibits.

On September 9, 1992, several weeks after the Batson hearing, the state trial court issued an order directing the prosecutor to supplement the Batson record by affidavit with an “explanation, if any, as to the District Attorney's contention that Billy Morris was a single man.” The trial court's order noted that during voir dire Mr. Morris said he was married. In an affidavit submitted by the prosecutor dated the same day, the prosecutor stated:

Mike Campbell and myself were at all times under the impression and understood that Mr. Billy Morris was a single male and he was struck by the state for that reason. We did not learn until long after the trial and upon reading the transcript that Billy Morris was in fact married and his spouse unemployed. The notes which we prepared in preparation for the Batson [h]earing also reflected that Billy Morris was single and no where [sic] in our notes taken during this jury selection process is it noted that Billy Morris was a married man.

The next day, without argument or opportunity for cross-examination by Mr. Adkins about the prosecutor's affidavit, the state trial court entered its order “finding that there was no purposeful racial discrimination in the peremptory strikes exercised by the State as to Billy Morris, or any other black juror struck.” The trial court's order expressly relied upon the testimony at the Batson hearing and the affidavit submitted by the prosecutor. With respect to Mr. Morris, the state trial court found that he was struck because of the “mistaken” belief that he was single. Invoking the trial court's own personal experience with the prosecutor in other cases, ³ the trial court found the prosecutor's assertion of mistaken belief as to Mr. Morris's marital status “to be credible.” Upon the return from remand after the Batson hearing, the Alabama appellate courts again affirmed Mr. Adkins's convictions and death sentence. See Adkins IV, 639 So.2d 515;⁴Ex parte Adkins, 639 So.2d 522 (Ala.1994)( Adkins V). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Adkins v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 851, 115 S.Ct. 151, 130 L.Ed.2d 90 (1994).

Mr. Adkins timely sought postconviction relief in the state court pursuant to Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. His Rule 32 petition was denied by the state trial court, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Adkins v. State, 930 So.2d 524, 550 (Ala.Crim.App.2001)( Adkins VI). The Alabama Supreme Court denied discretionary review, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Adkins v. Alabama, 547 U.S. 1132, 126 S.Ct. 2022, 164 L.Ed.2d 786 (2006).

Mr. Adkins then timely filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus now before us, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on November 14, 2006. His petition asserted, among other claims, that the state unconstitutionally exercised its peremptory challenges by striking African–American jurors on the bases of their race in violation of Batson. In respondent's brief in the District Court, the state admitted that “[t]he merits of [Mr. Adkins's Batson] claim were reviewed and rejected by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court,” but asserted that the state courts' denial of relief on this claim was entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). Ultimately, the District Court denied Mr. Adkins's Batson claim on the merits. Mr. Adkins filed a timely notice of appeal and as we recited above, the District Court granted him...