Caudill v. Conover

Decision Date14 May 2012
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 5:10–84–DCR.
Citation871 F.Supp.2d 639
PartiesVirginia S. CAUDILL, Petitioner, v. Janet CONOVER, Warden of Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

David Hare Harshaw, III, Dennis J. Burke, Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy–LaGrange LaGrange, KY, for Plaintiff.

Matthew R. Krygiel, Office of Attorney General–KY Frankfort, KY, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

EDWARD B. ATKINS, United States Magistrate Judge.

Virginia Caudill is a death-sentenced inmate who has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [R. 1]. The matter has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for the purposes of hearing all non-dispositive pre-trial matters and conducting any necessary hearings. [R. 22]. Currently before the Court is the Petitioner's motion for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. [R. 26]. Also pending is Petitioner's motion for appointment of an independent expert. [R. 27]. The issues have been fully briefed and are now ripe for review.

I. BACKGROUND

During the early morning hours of March 15, 1998, Lonnetta White was bludgeoned to death in her home in Lexington, Kentucky. Her body was found in the trunk of her burning vehicle in a field several miles away. Numerous items of valuable personal property, including guns, jewelry, and a mink coat, were stolen from her home. Caudill and her co-defendant, Jonathon Goforth, admitted they were present in White's home when the murder occurred, but each accused the other of murdering and robbing the victim and setting fire to her vehicle. Caudill v. Commonwealth, 120 S.W.3d 635, 648 (Ky.2003), modified on denial of reh'g, Feb. 5, 2004.

Caudill had been living with the victim's son, Steve White, but had moved out of his house on either March 13 or 14 following an argument concerning Caudill's drug use. Caudill went to a nearby “crack house,” a residence where drug users gathered to buy, sell, and ingest controlled substances, especially crack cocaine. There she encountered Goforth, a casual acquaintance whom she had not seen for about fifteen years. Caudill testified that, on the afternoon of March 14, Goforth gave her a ride to Mrs. White's residence and that Caudill induced White to give her twenty or thirty dollars on the pretext that she needed the money to rent a room for the night. Instead, she returned to the crack house and used the money to purchase crack cocaine. At about 3:00 a.m. on March 15, Caudill and Goforth returned to Mrs. White's residence.

According to Caudill, she went to the door and told Mrs. White that she needed more money for the room rental. Goforth remained out of sight near the garage. When Mrs. White turned away to retrieve the money, Goforth burst through the door and attacked her without warning. Caudill did not identify the weapon used by Goforth but remembered that, during the course of the attack, Mrs. White pleaded with her to “please help me, Virginia.” Goforth then took Caudill to a bedroom and bound her hands together. After killing White, Goforth ransacked the residence, loaded the jewelry, guns, and mink coat into his pickup truck, and wrapped the body in a carpet. He then prevailed upon Caudill to help him carry the body to the garage and load it into the trunk of Mrs. White's automobile. The two then drove both vehicles to a vacant field where Goforth doused Mrs. White's vehicle with gasoline and set it afire.

According to Goforth, Caudill induced Mrs. White to admit them into her residence under the pretext that they were having car trouble and needed to use White's telephone. Once inside, Caudill demanded that Mrs. White give her some money. When White refused, Caudill unexpectedly produced a roofer's hammer that she had surreptitiously removed from Goforth's pickup truck and struck White in the back of the head with full force. When Goforth asked Caudill why she had struck Mrs. White, Caudill struck her again. As Caudill continued to bludgeon the victim with the hammer, Goforth went into the living room, sat down on a sofa, and pondered what he should do next. Caudill ransacked the victim's residence and loaded the stolen property into Goforth's pickup truck. She wrapped Mrs. White's body in the carpet. At Caudill's request, Goforth helped carry the body to the garage and load it into the trunk of White's automobile. They then drove both vehicles to a vacant field where Caudill doused White's automobile with gasoline and set it afire.

Id. at 648–49.

Caudill and Goforth were each convicted by a jury of murder, robbery in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, arson in the second degree, and tampering with physical evidence. Id. at 648. Each was sentenced to death for the murder of Lonetta White and received the maximum authorized penalties on the remaining convictions. Id.

On direct appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed all of Caudill's and Goforth's convictions and sentences. Id. Caudill's convictions became final on June 21, 2004 when the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Caudill v. Kentucky, 542 U.S. 922, 124 S.Ct. 2877, 159 L.Ed.2d 781 (2004). On February 11, 2005, Caudill filed a post-conviction motion in state court seeking relief pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (“RCr”) 11.42 and 60.02, as well as Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 10.02. [Tr. 428–487]. Caudill also filed a motion seeking leave of court to conduct post-conviction discovery. [Tr. 424–426]. The state circuit court did not permit any post-conviction discovery and held an evidentiary hearing addressing only Caudill's claim of juror misconduct. The court eventually denied all of Caudill's post-conviction claims. [Tr. 773–785]. Caudill appealed all but her juror misconduct claim to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which denied relief on April 23, 2009. Caudill v. Commonwealth, No.2006–SC–457, 2009 WL 1110398 (Ky. Apr. 23, 2009). Caudill's petition for rehearing was denied, and on March 8, 2010, she filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court. [R. 1].

II. SUMMARY OF PENDING MOTIONS

The Petitioner has asked the Court to permit discovery so that she may obtain (1) “any evidence in the control of the Respondent of an exculpatory nature” and (2) “depositions of her trial counsel and of former Kentucky State Crime Lab employee Edward Taylor.” [R. 26 at 2]. She also seeks an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of an expert in blood stain pattern analysis. [R. 26 at 25; R. 27 at 1]. More specifically, Petitioner's motions for discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and appointment of an expert relate to the following claims:

Claim 8: Knowing Presentation of False Testimony/Prosecutorial Misconduct. In her eighth claim for relief, Petitioner asserts that the prosecution knowingly permitted false testimony from Cynthia Ellis, Julia Davis, and Jeanette Holden. [R. 1 at 66–77]. Cynthia Ellis and Julia Davis are jailhouse informants who testified that Caudill confessed to killing the victim. Jeanette Holden lived in the house where police found Caudill following the murder. She testified that Caudill had made statements to her about wanting to hurt somebody in order to make money. Petitioner claims that prosecutorial misconduct was committed when the prosecutors in her case failed to correct false statements by these witnesses. Cynthia Ellis denied receiving any benefit from the prosecution in exchange for her testimony. [R. 1 at 66–69]. Julia Davis incorrectly recited the details of the plea bargain in her criminal case. [ Id. at 70–72]. Jeanette Holden testified that she received no benefit on her own charges that were pending at the time she cooperated with investigators. [ Id. at 72–73]. Petitioner argues that the Commonwealth's files will demonstrate that all three witnesses testified falsely about the benefit they received in exchange for their cooperation. Presumably, Caudill would also call these individuals as witnesses at an evidentiary hearing, along with any other witnesses who might be identified in the discovery materials as having knowledge of the deals.

Claim 9: Prosecutorial Misconduct Preventing Impeachment. Petitioner next claims that the prosecution committed misconduct by objecting when Petitioner's trial counsel asked Jeanette Holden whether she had cooperated with police in another investigation. [R. 1 at 77–79]. Petitioner contends that the line of questioning by counsel was relevant to Holden's credibility as a jailhouse snitch, and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by seeking to have it suppressed. The discovery sought would allegedly show that Holden had a “cozy” relationship with police and frequently cooperated in their investigations.

Claim 10: Violation of Brady v. Maryland. Caudill also argues that the prosecution violated Brady by failing to disclose the parameters of any deals that were made with Ellis, Davis, and Holden in exchange for their testimony. [R. 1 at 79–82]. Caudill believes that the requested files will contain the parameters of the deals made with these witnesses and prove that the prosecution violated Brady by failing to disclose those details.

Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. The second category of discovery sought by Petitioner relates to her claims of ineffectiveassistance of trial counsel. In grounds eleven through seventeen of her petition, Caudill claims that trial counsel performed ineffectively by (11) failing rebut the prosecution's blood spatter expert witness; (12) failing to present evidence that Goforth had a motive to rob and murder the victim; (13) failing to investigate and impeach the prosecution's informant witnesses; (14) failing to call Jeffrey Spence to testify; (15) failing to cite adequate reasons for separate trials; (16) ineffectively investigating and presenting mitigation evidence; and (17) failing to inform the Petitioner of her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Skatzes v. Warden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • June 1, 2017
    ...2015), citing Loza v. Mitchell, 766 F.3d 466, 494 (6th Cir. 2014). In reaching this conclusion the court quoted Caudill v. Conover, 871 F. Supp. 2d 639, 645 (E.D. Ky 2012), in that "[i]t would defy logic to preclude a petitioner from developing factual information in an evidentiary hearing ......
  • Quintero v. Carpenter
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • December 12, 2014
    ...v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Inst., No. 3:11-cv-465, 2012 WL 4811122, at *8 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 10, 2012); accord Caudill v. Conover, 871 F.Supp.2d 639, 649 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (citing House, 547 U.S. at 537-38) ("A federal court might also consider new evidence when deciding whether there is ca......
  • Graggs v. Warden, Ebanon Corr. Inst., CASE NO. 2:12-CV-190
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • May 30, 2013
    ...motion to expand or supplement the record through Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See, e.g., Caudill v. Conover, 871 F.Supp.2d 639, 646 (E.D. Ky. May 14, 2012)("It would defy logic to preclude a petitioner from developing factual information in an evidentiary hearing [unde......
  • Hale v. Shoop
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • March 31, 2021
    ...Pinholster], but allow her to introduce the same factual information via discovery and expansion of the record." Caudill v. Conover, 871 F. Supp. 2d 639, 646 (E.D. Ky. 2012). Federal habeas courts may consider new evidence, however, when deciding whether there is cause and prejudice or actu......
  • 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