Alley v. Bell

Decision Date18 January 2000
Docket NumberNo. 97-3159-D/V.,97-3159-D/V.
Citation101 F.Supp.2d 588
PartiesSedley ALLEY, Petitioner, v. Ricky BELL, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

Robert L. Hutton, Glankler Brown, PLLC, Memphis, TN, Sedley Alley, pro se, Paul R. Bottei, Henry Alan Martin, Esq., Office of the Federal Public Defender, Nashville, TN, for Sedley Alley, petitioner.

Glenn R. Pruden, Office of Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Nashville, TN, for Ricky Bell, Warden, respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND ORDER VACATING STAY OF EXECUTION

DONALD, District Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................601
                B. STATE COURT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ..............................................................602
                C. PETITIONER'S FEDERAL HABEAS CLAIMS ..........................................................607
                D. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS ......................................................................612
                    I. Claims Not Cognizable In Federal Habeas .................................................612
                   II. Analysis Of Procedurally Defaulted Claims ...............................................612
                       A. Legal Standard for Procedural Default ................................................612
                       B. Specific Procedurally Defaulted Claims ...............................................614
                           1. Judicial Bias ....................................................................614
                           2. Procedurally Defaulted Claims of Withholding of Evidence .........................618
                           3. Improper Jury Instructions .......................................................620
                           4. Caldwell Error ...................................................................622
                           5. Unconstitutionality of Death Penalty Statute .....................................628
                           6. Electrocution Violates the Eighth Amendment ......................................630
                           7. Prosecutorial Misconduct During Voir Dire ........................................630
                           8. Denial of the Right to Sit at Counsel Table ......................................631
                           9. Denial of the Right to Not be Viewed in Jail Garb ................................632
                          10. Unconstitutional Victim-Impact Evidence or Argument ..............................632
                          11. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ................................................632
                  III. Analysis of Claims Considered on the Merits .............................................633
                       A. Legal Standard for Merits Review .....................................................633
                       B. Specific Claims for Substantive Review ...............................................634
                           1. Judicial Bias ....................................................................634
                           2. Evidentiary Rulings Deprived Petitioner of a Defense .............................638
                           3. Unconstitutional Aggravating Circumstance ........................................640
                           4. Unconstitutional Jury Instruction on Reasonable Doubt ............................644
                           5. Unconstitutional Jury Instruction on Malice ......................................646
                           6. Unconstitutional Use of Victim-Impact Evidence ...................................648
                           7. Unconstitutional Exclusion of Jurors Jarred and Todd .............................649
                
                           8. Prosecutorial Misconduct During Cross-Examination ................................653
                           9. Prosecutor's Improper Use of Victim-Impact Evidence ..............................654
                          10. Insufficient Evidence of Deliberation ............................................654
                          11. Insufficient Evidence of Premeditation ...........................................656
                          12. Improper Instructions on Deliberation and Premeditation ..........................657
                          13. Burden-Shifting Instructions on Mitigation .......................................658
                          14. Prosecutor's Misconduct During Voir Dire .........................................659
                          15. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ................................................659
                C. Legal Standard for Sixth Amendment Claims ...................................................659
                D. Analysis of Specific Claims .................................................................660
                           1. Inadequate Preparation ...........................................................660
                           2. Failures to Make Objections to Victim-Impact Evidence ............................662
                           3. Failure to Object to Prosecution Arguments and Jury Instructions .................662
                           4. Failure to Seek Trial Judge's Recusal for Bias ...................................662
                           5. Inadequate Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses .................................663
                           6. Inadequate Presentation of Mitigating Evidence ...................................663
                           7. Inadequate Closing Argument ......................................................664
                           8. Failure to Raise Insufficient Evidence ...........................................664
                           9. Failure to Challenge Constitutionality of Tennessee Death Penalty
                               Statute .........................................................................664
                          10. Failure to File a Petition for Rehearing on Direct Appeal ........................665
                E. APPEAL ISSUES ...............................................................................666
                    I. Certificate of Appealability ............................................................666
                   II. In Forma Pauperis Appeal ................................................................667
                  III. Vacation of Stay of Execution ...........................................................667
                                                TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
                FEDERAL CASES
                Adams v. Jago, 703 F.2d 978, 981 (6th Cir.1983) ................................................125
                Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) .........................103
                Amos v. Scott, 61 F.3d 333, 340-41 (5th Cir.1995) ........................................53-55, 59
                Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6, 103 S.Ct. 276, 74 L.Ed.2d 3 (1982) ..........................25
                Austin v. Bell, 126 F.3d 843, 847 (6th Cir.1997) .............................................94-96
                Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090
                  (1983) .......................................................................................141
                Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69
                  (1986) ........................................................................................54
                Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 31, 41 S.Ct. 230, 65 L.Ed. 481
                  (1921) ................................................................................... 73, 74
                Blanton v. Elo, 186 F.3d 712 (6th Cir.1999) ................................................ 69, 81
                Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987) .........................101
                Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 376, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316
                  (1990) .......................................................................................124
                Boysiewick v. Schriro, 179 F.3d 616, 621 (8th Cir.1999) .........................................76
                Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ....................... 38, 39
                Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d
                  353 (1993) ........................................................................ 102, 111, 112
                Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1991) ...........................93
                Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86
                  L.Ed.2d 231 (1985) ............................................................................45
                Caldwell v. State, 1994 WL 716266 (Tenn.Crim.App. Dec.28, 1994) .................................51
                Campbell v. State, 1993 WL 122057 (Tenn.Crim.App. Apr.21, 1993) .................................51
                
                Cardwell v. Greene, 152 F.3d 331, 339 (4th Cir.1998) ............................................69
                Carpenter v. Mohr, 163 F.3d 938, 944-45 (6th Cir.1998) ................................. 48, 60, 74
                Cartwright v. Maynard, 822 F.2d 1477, 1485 (10th Cir.1987) ..................................86, 88
                Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705
                  (1967) ...................................................................................111-113
                Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 330 (6th Cir.1998) .................................. 48, 50, 56, 96, 99
                Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d
                  640 (1991) ...............................................................23, 25, 26, 37, 53, 59
                                                                                               61, 65, 67, 103, 138
                Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636
                  (1986) ........................................................................................80
                Crane v. Sparkman, No. 97-5321, 1998 WL 598725 at * 6 (6th Cir
                  Aug.27, 1998)..................................................................................76
                Dorman v. Wainwright, 798 F.2d 1358, 1363 (11th Cir.1986) .......................................64
                Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401, 109 S.Ct. 1211, 103 L.Ed.2d 435 (1989) ...........................52
                Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 366, 115 S.Ct. 887, 130 L.Ed.2d 865
                  (1995)
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Alley v. Bell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • October 3, 2002
    ...29, 1997). Alley filed the present petition for habeas corpus in district court, and the court denied Alley relief. Alley v. Bell, 101 F.Supp.2d 588, 604-06, 666 (W.D.Tenn. 2000). Thereafter, this court granted him a certificate of appealability on the following five issues: (1) whether All......
  • Sutton v. Bell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • January 22, 2010
    ...Sutton, 2001 WL 220186, at *40. The constitutionality of Tennessee's reasonable doubt instruction has been approved by Alley v. Bell, 101 F.Supp.2d 588 (W.D.Tenn.2000), aff'd 307 F.3d 380 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 839, 124 S.Ct. 99, 157 L.Ed.2d 72 (2003). The only difference in......
  • Black v. Bell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • December 11, 2001
    ...in determining whether a change in state law is to be applied retroactively." Houston v. Dutton, 50 F.3d at 384-85; Alley v. Bell, 101 F.Supp.2d 588, 657 (W.D.Tenn.2000)("... reliance on Brown simply does not raise a cognizable federal claim, but merely a claim under state substantive law."......
  • Bosse v. State, D–2012–1128
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • May 25, 2017
    ..., 231 Md.App. 457, 478, 153 A.3d 780, 792–93 (2017) ; Hain v. Gibson , 287 F.3d 1224, 1238–39 (10th Cir. 2002) ; Alley v. Bell , 101 F.Supp.2d 588, 648 n. 46 (W.D. Tenn. 2000). The Judges of this Court strive to correctly apply the law, but it can be difficult when clear directive is not gi......
  • 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