Bowling v. Haeberlin

• Decision Date: 28 September 2012
• Docket Number: Civil No. 03-28-ART
• Parties: RONNIE LEE BOWLING, Petitioner, v. GLENN HAEBERLIN, Warden, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky

RONNIE LEE BOWLING, Petitioner,
v.
GLENN HAEBERLIN, Warden, Respondent.

Civil No. 03-28-ART

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON

Dated: September 28, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Almost two decades ago, a Kentucky jury convicted Petitioner Ronnie Lee Bowling of murdering Ronald Smith and Marvin Hensley and sentenced him to death. Bowling's petition for the writ of habeas corpus, R. 1, now challenges that conviction. Bowling alleges numerous errors in both his trial and his direct appeal. And he seeks to supplement those allegations through motions for evidentiary hearings, R. 118, R. 188, additional discovery, R. 120, and funds for a brain MRI and neuropsychological evaluation under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f), R. 166. The Court separated Bowling's habeas claims into those that were associated with the evidentiary motions and those that were not. See R. 190. A previous Memorandum Opinion and Order addressed the thirty-seven claims that were not related to those evidentiary motions. See R. 245. This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses the twenty-three remaining claims and their related evidentiary motions. On all twenty-three, Bowling is not entitled to habeas relief. Nor is he entitled the additional evidence he seeks.

The Court recognizes that this opinion, like its predecessor, R. 245, is lengthy. But its length is warranted. The Court's paramount duty is to fully consider the merits of the

Page 2

petition. Cf. Chaney v. Brown, 712 F.2d 441, 443 (10th Cir. 1983) (declaring that the court's overriding concern was "to give due consideration to the merits of the appeal"). And where a petitioner such as Bowling asks numerous questions of the process that has sentenced him to death, numerous answers must be given. Admittedly, the Court could have batted away many of the frivolous issues with nary a word. But doing so would contravene the federal courts' long held recognition that special attention is warranted in capital cases, "[g]iven that the imposition of death by public authority is so profoundly different from all other penalties," Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 605 (1978) (Plurality Opinion of Burger, C.J.). The Court therefore feels an obligation—not just to Bowling, but to all those affected by this case—to thoroughly address each issue raised before the ultimate punishment is given.

Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................5

DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................11

I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Claims 48, 50)..................................................... 11

A. Randy Harris (Claim 48).......................................................................................... 13
B. April Lunsford (Claim 50)........................................................................................ 19

II. Juror Voir Dire and Challenges (Claims 2, 15, 67)...................................................26

A. For-Cause Challenges (Claim 2).............................................................................26

1. The Seven Jurors Who Deliberated and Delivered the Verdict ......................... 26

a. Susie Edwards ............................................................................................... 29
b. Nannette Johnson .......................................................................................... 30
c. Pamela Childress ........................................................................................... 31
d. Cleda Creech ................................................................................................. 34
e. Diana Greer ................................................................................................... 35
f. Rosalitta Gregory .......................................................................................... 36
g. Doug Dixon ................................................................................................... 37

2. The Eleven Jurors Who Did Not Deliberate and Deliver the Verdict ................ 43

B. Voir Dire Questioning (Claim 15)...........................................................................45
C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Regarding Juror Ena Siner (Claim 67)..............50

III. Pretrial Disclosures (Claim 13)...................................................................................56

A. Photograph of the Revolver......................................................................................59
B. Sergeant Bickerstaff's Report...................................................................................61
C. Ora Lee Isaacs' Incomplete Initial Statement..........................................................63

IV. Fundamentally Unfair Evidence (Claims 3, 20)........................................................64

A. Evidence of the Mt. Vernon Shooting (Claim 3)......................................................66
B. Improper Opinion Testimony (Claim 20).................................................................71

1. Officer Phelps's Testimony Regarding Holster................................................. 72
2. Officer Phelps's Testimony Regarding Tire Track............................................ 74
3. Ed Bowling's Testimony.................................................................................... 75
4. Warren Mitchell's Testimony............................................................................. 77
5. Ronnie Freels and Jeffrey Scott Doyle's Testimony.......................................... 78
6. R.J. Elkins and David Gross's Testimony.......................................................... 81

V. Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (Claims 51, 52, 2nd Amend. to Petition, 3rd Amend to Petition) ................................................................................................................ 83

A. CBLA Evidence as Brady Violation and Grounds for Vacating Death Sentence (Claim 52, 2nd Amend. Petition, 3rd Amend. Petition).................................................83

Page 4

B. Ineffective Assistance for Failure To Secure Expert To Challenge Bullet Lead Testimony (Claim 51)..................................................................................................... 92

VI. Testimony of Timothy Lyle Chappell (Claims 18, 19, 45, 46, 47)............................97

A. Suppression of Chappell's Testimony Under Massiah (Claim 19)..........................98
B. Brady and Giglio Evidence (Claims 18, 45).......................................................... 100

1. Chappell's Criminal and Psychiatric Records (Claim 18)............................... 100
2. Chappell's Federal and State Charges (Claim 45)........................................... 102

C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Claims 46, 47)................................................. 110

1. Failure to Investigate Chappell (Claim 46)...................................................... 110
2. Failure to Investigate and Call Gilbert Jones (Claim 47)................................. 112

VII. Bowling's Alleged Brain Damage (Claims 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61).............. 117

A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Claims 53, 55, 58, 59, 61)............................... 117

1. Investigating, Securing, and Presenting Expert Testimony Regarding Bowling's
Alleged Brain Damage (Claims 53, 58, 59) ........................................................... 118

a. Deficient Performance....................................................................................... 120
b. Prejudice ............................................................................................................ 125

2. Trial Court's Assignment of a KCPC Expert (Claim 55) ................................. 130
3. Direct Appeal (Claim 61) ................................................................................. 133

B. Trial Court Rulings (Claims 54, 57, 60)................................................................ 140

1. Granting Funds for a Psychiatrist and Denying Funds for a Neuropsychologist (Claim 57) ............................................................................................................... 140
2. Denying Funds for an Independent Expert Witness (Claim 54) ...................... 143
3. Ordering KCPC's "Neutral" Evaluation (Claim 60) ........................................ 143

VIII. Victim Impact Testimony (Claim 4) ................................................................... 145

IX. Cumulative Prejudice Analysis ................................................................................. 155

X. Evidentiary Motions................................................................................................... 161

A. Motions Mooted by Cullen v. Pinholster................................................................ 162
B. Burden for Motions................................................................................................ 165
C. Showing of Facts that Would Entitle Bowling to Relief........................................ 166

...