Higgs v. U.S.A
Decision Date | 06 April 2010 |
Docket Number | Civil No. PJM 05-3180.,Criminal No. PJM 98-0520. |
Citation | 711 F.Supp.2d 479 |
Parties | Dustin John HIGGS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Michael Wiseman, Federal Defender of Philadelphia, Capital Habeas Corpus Unit, Federal Court Division, Philadelphia, PA, Stephen H. Sachs, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Petitioner.
Deborah A. Johnston, Office of the US Attorney, Greenbelt, MD, Sandra Wilkinson, Office of the US Attorney, Baltimore, MD, Jeffrey B. Kahan, Department of Justice, Capital Case Unit, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
After finding Dustin Higgs guilty of the kidnapping and murder of Tamika Black, Mishann Chinn, and Tanji Jackson, a jury determined that he should receive the death penalty. The Court thereafter entered judgment on the verdict and Higgs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the conviction and sentence. See United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281 (4th Cir.2003) (“ Higgs I ”). The Supreme Court denied Higgs' petition for writ of certiorari. Higgs v. United States, 543 U.S. 999, 125 S.Ct. 627, 160 L.Ed.2d 456 (2004).
During the pendency of his appeal, Higgs filed a Motion for a New Trial, which this Court denied, a decision which the Fourth Circuit also affirmed. See United States v. Higgs, 95 Fed.Appx. 37 (4th Cir.2004) cert. denied, Higgs v. United States, 543 U.S. 1004, 125 S.Ct. 608, 160 L.Ed.2d 465 (2004) (“ Higgs II ”). Higgs has now filed a Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or in the Alternative Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting twenty-five claims of error. This filing is accompanied by a motion seeking additional discovery as to certain issues. The Court considers the pending motions.
The relevant facts, as set forth by the Fourth Circuit in Higgs I, are as follows:
A. The Murders
B. The Investigation
Although Higgs was almost immediately a suspect, the investigation into the murders continued for nearly three years before an arrest was made. On March 21, 1996, Park Police officers first interviewed Higgs at his apartment. At that time, Higgs acknowledged that he knew Jackson and that he may have talked to her the night before she died, but he denied that she had ever been in his apartment. Higgs told the officers that he first heard about the murders while watching the ten o'clock news on Saturday, January 27, while attending a party at the home of Phyllis Smith, who was his girlfriend at the time. Higgs also told the officers that he had immediately commented to a party guest that he thought he knew “that Tanji girl.” J.A. 672. According to the chief investigator, however, the names and photographs of the three victims were not released to the media until January 28.
After the interview of Higgs was concluded, the officers executed an arrest and search warrant arising from Higgs's suspected involvement in unrelated bank fraud violations. In addition to a variety of documents and cash bundles, the officers seized crack cocaine, a .380 semiautomatic firearm, and boxes of ammunition for .380, .45 and .38 caliber weapons. Higgs was arrested on federal drug charges and, on May 12, 1997, pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. He was ultimately sentenced to seventeen years imprisonment for the charge. Higgs has remained in the custody of either state or federal law enforcement officials since that arrest.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee v. Thomas, CIVIL ACTION 10-0587-WS-M
...capital punishment to find that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt." Higgs v. United States, 711 F. Supp.2d 479, 539 (D. Md. 2010). "Whether the aggravating factors presented by the prosecution outweigh the mitigating factors presented by the defense i......
-
Barnette v. United States
...a particular witness. These are precisely the typesof tactical decisions a court is not supposed to second guess." Higgs v. United States, 711 F.Supp.2d 479, 515 (D. Md. 2010)(citing Byram v. Ozmint, 339 F.3d 203, 209 (4th Cir. 2003)). Petitioner presents no evidence to show that any member......
-
State v. Nunley
...doubt standard simply has no application to the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.”); Higgs v. United States, 711 F.Supp.2d 479, 540 (D.Md.2010) (“Whether the aggravating factors presented by the prosecution outweigh the mitigating factors presented by the defense is a no......
-
United States v. Lighty
...show that other relevant facts and circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination against women. See Higgs v. United States, 711 F. Supp. 2d 479, 503-04 (D. Md. 2010). Once a defendant has established a prima facie case in Step One, the court proceeds to Step Two: at this stage t......
-
TERRITORIALITY IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW.
...edits, thanks to the editors of the Michigan Law Review. doi: 10.36644/mlr.l21.3.territoriality (1.) Higgs v. United States, 711 F. Supp. 2d 479, 493 (D. Md. (2.) United States v. Higgs, 141 S. Ct. 645, 647-48 (2021) (mem.) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (quoting 18 U.S.C. [section] 3596(a)). ......