Hodges v. Bell

• Decision Date: 28 March 2008
• Docket Number: No. 3:01-624.,3:01-624.
• Parties: Henry Eugene HODGES, Petitioner, v. Ricky BELL, Warden, Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

548 F.Supp.2d 485

Henry Eugene HODGES, Petitioner, v. Ricky BELL, Warden, Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, Respondent.

No. 3:01-624.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

March 28, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Bradley A. MaClean, Tennessee Justice Project, Gretchen L. Swift, Paul R. Bottei, Henry Alan Martin, Kelley J. Henry, Federal Public Defender's Office, Nashville, TN, for Petitioner.

Jennifer L. Smith, Mark A. Fulks, Amy L. Tarkington, Angele M. Gregory, C. Daniel Lins, MgLaw, PLLC, Joseph F. Whalen, III, Tennessee Attorney General's Office, Nashville, TN, Stephen W. Austin, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM

WILLIAM J. HAYNES, JR., District Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I.  Introduction ................................................................490
                      A.  Discovery and Evidentiary Hearing Issues ................................493
                          1.  Review of State Court Record ........................................494
                          2.  Conclusions of Law ..................................................496
                 II.  Petitioner's Non-Defaulted Claims ...........................................502
                      A.  Procedural History ......................................................502
                      B.  State Courts' Findings of Fact ..........................................503
                      C.  Conclusions of Law ......................................................508
                          1.  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims ............................509
                               a.  Ineffectiveness of Trial Counsel ...............................509
                               b.  Ineffectiveness of Counsel at Sentencing .......................519
                               c.  Ineffectiveness of Appellate Counsel ...........................528
                               d.  The Validity of Petitioner's Guilty Plea .......................529
                          2.   Petitioner's Jury Claims ...........................................529
                               a.  Voir Dire ......................................................529
                

                               b.  Jury Exemption .................................................536
                               c.  Jury Instruction ...............................................537
                          3.   State's Insufficient Proof of Aggravating Circumstances ............540
                          4.   Victim's Mother's Presence at Trial ................................543
                          5.   The Testimony of the State's Medical Examiner ......................545
                          6.   Denial of Expert Services ..........................................546
                          7.   Exclusion of TDOC Evidence .........................................547
                          8.   Admission of Petitioner's Georgia Murder Conviction ................549
                          9.   Tennessee's Proportionality Review of Death Sentences ..............550
                         10.   Unconstitutional Death Penalty Statute .............................552
                         11.   Production of Dr. Nurcombe's Notes .................................552
                         12.   Dr. Kyser's Testimony ..............................................554
                III.  Defaulted Claims ............................................................555
                      A.  Claims Found by the State Court to be Defaulted .........................555
                      B.  Claims Challenged by Respondent as Defaulted ............................557
                      C.  Conclusions of Law ......................................................559
                          1. Noncompliance with Applicable State Rules ............................561
                          2. "Firmly Established" and "Regularly Followed" State Rules ............561
                          3. Independent and Adequate State Rule ..................................562
                          4. Cause and Prejudice Requirement ......................................563
                             a. Cause .............................................................563
                             b. Prejudice .........................................................566
                 IV.  Conclusion ..................................................................567
                

Petitioner, Henry Eugene Hodges, a state prisoner, filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking the writ of habeas corpus to set aside his first-degree murder conviction for which he received the death sentence. The Court granted Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel. (Docket Entry Nos. 3 and 5). Petitioner's counsel filed an amended petition asserting claims under Article I § 9 and Article III of the United States Constitution as well as the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (Docket Entry No. 32). The Respondent filed an answer (Docket Entry No. 39). In earlier proceedings, collateral issues arose about the Petitioner's conditions of confinement that the Court addressed in an Order (Docket Entry No. 100) that the Sixth Circuit later vacated. (Docket Entry No. 291).

In summary, Petitioner's amended petition¹ includes the following claims with numerous subparts, discussed infra:

(1) Denial of a fair and impartial jury in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, because the trial court precluded Petitioner from asking proper questions necessary to empanel a fair and impartial jury;

(2) denial of the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments;

(3) the trial court's instructions at the sentencing proceeding were inaccurate and incomplete, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;

(4) the trial court admitted testimony from prosecution witnesses that Petitioner showed no remorse in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;

(5) the trial court denied Petitioner funding for an expert in the field of genetic transmission of drug and alcohol dependency, and the effects of drug and alcohol abuse in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;

(6) the trial court allowed admission, as an aggravating circumstance, a Georgia conviction that occurred after the offense here in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

(7) the State withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;

(8) Petitioner's death sentence violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because the State withheld material exculpatory evidence and presented false testimony at the sentencing phase of trial;

(9) the trial court allowed the State to intrude unconstitutionally into Petitioner's preparation for the sentencing hearing in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment by: 1) ordering Petitioner to provide the State notice of witnesses Petitioner would present at his sentencing hearing; 2) ordering Petitioner to provide the State with his expert's report; 3) ordering Petitioner to submit to an evaluation performed by the State's experts, Drs. Kyser and Morgan; and 4) ordering that Petitioner to produce Dr. Nurcombe's notes from his interview of Petitioner and in preparation of his report;

(10) the trial court allowed educated persons fitting occupational categories to exempt themselves from jury service and denied Petitioner funds to employ an expert to provide statistical evidence in support of this claim in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments;

(11) the trial court precluded Petitioner from inquiring of prospective jurors 1) whether they could consider mitigation evidence if they learned that Petitioner had previously been convicted of another murder; and 2) whether they believed that Petitioner would be incarcerated for the remainder of his life if the jury sentenced him to life imprisonment in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments;

(12) the trial court failed to strike for cause prospective jurors who stated that they would automatically impose a death sentence; 2) struck for cause prospective jurors who, while they expressed reservations respecting the death penalty, indicated that they could follow the law; 3) failed to strike incompetent jurors; and 4) failed to strike a former girlfriend of a police officer who was involved in the investigation into the murder in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments;

(13) the trial court and the prosecution obtained from prospective jurors a promise that if Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder, and if they found that aggravating evidence outweighed mitigating evidence, they would do their "duty and obligation" to return a death sentence in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments;

(14) the trial court did not prevent or rectify the prosecutors inflammatory conduct in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments;

(15) the trial court denied Petitioner funds necessary to employ an expert to testify about genetic and environmental causes of substance abuse in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;

(16) the trial court denied Petitioner the right to present the jury with relevant mitigating evidence in violation of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments;

(17) the trial court denied Petitioner's request for specific sentencing instructions and gave the jury improper instructions in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;

(18) Petitioner's conviction and death sentence violate the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because Petitioner as incompetent to stand trial due to neurological, bio-chemical, and psychological impairments of the central nervous system and brain;

(19) Petitioner's conviction and death sentence violate the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because Petitioner was incompetent to plead guilty due to neurological, bio-chemical, and psychological impairments of the central nervous system and brain;

(20) Petitioner's conviction...