Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

Hogue v. Scott

Document Cited authorities 83 Cited in 13 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Decision Date18 January 1995
Docket NumberNo. 4:92-CV-359-A.,4:92-CV-359-A.
PartiesJerry Lee HOGUE, Petitioner, v. Wayne SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

874 F. Supp. 1486

Jerry Lee HOGUE, Petitioner, v. Wayne SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent.

No. 4:92-CV-359-A.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division.

November 16, 1994.

As Corrected November 23, 1994.

Order Denying Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment January 18, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robert Charles Owen, Texas Resource Center, Austin, TX, Phyllis Louise Crocker, Cleveland State University, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland, OH, for petitioner.

Reneau J. Longoria, Office of the Atty. Gen., Austin, TX, for respondent.

CONTENTS of MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

                                                                                     Page
                  I. INTRODUCTION                                                    1496
                 II. AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED                          1496
                III. COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN STATE COURT
                      AND IN PRIOR FEDERAL COURT ACTIONS INSTITUTED BY HOGUE         1496
                 IV. THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING HOGUE'S GUILT                         1500
                     A. Witness Crawford                                             1500
                     B. Witness Renick                                               1503
                     C. Witness Nix (Jonathan)                                       1505
                     D. Witness Mr. Gamble                                           1505
                     E. Witness Mrs. Gamble                                          1506
                
                                                                                                       Page
                   F. Witness Brammall                                                                 1507
                   G. Witness Shetler                                                                  1507
                   H. Witness Cowsert                                                                  1507
                   I. Witness Kraus                                                                    1507
                   J. Witness Liggett                                                                  1507
                   K. Witness Gibson                                                                   1508
                   L. Witness Beaty                                                                    1508
                   M. Witness Megason                                                                  1508
                   N. Witness Johnson                                                                  1508
                   O. Witness Watkins                                                                  1508
                   P. Hogue's Defensive Theory                                                         1508
                V. EVIDENCE RECEIVED AT THE PUNISHMENT PHASE OF HOGUE'S
                    TRIAL                                                                              1509
                   A. Witness White                                                                    1509
                   B. Witness Diezei                                                                   1509
                   C. Witness Samson                                                                   1509
                   D. Witness Hightower                                                                1509
                   E. Witness Grigson                                                                  1510
                   F. Witness Becky Hogue                                                              1510
                   G. Witness Dickerson                                                                1510
                   H. Witness Ebel                                                                     1511
                VI. THE GROUNDS OF THE PETITION                                                        1511
                   A. Preliminary Statement                                                            1511
                   B. Respondent has Waived Exhaustion                                                 1512
                   C. The "Abuse-of-the-Writ" Determination Bars Hogue from Asserting
                        Grounds 14-33                                                                  1512
                      1. Other Potentially Pertinent Procedural Events                                 1513
                      2. Analysis Related to the "Abuse-of-the-Writ" Issue                             1514
                   D. Hogue's Grounds Related to his 1974 Colorado Conviction are Without
                       Merit                                                                           1515
                       (Pertaining to the 16th and 17th grounds of the petition, which read
                             16. THE STATE KNOWINGLY PRESENTED A FALSE
                                   PICTURE OF MR. HOGUE'S GUILTY PLEA TO
                                   RAPE IN COLORADO
                             17. THE ADMISSION OF MR. HOGUE'S VOID PRIOR
                                    CONVICTION AT THE SENTENCING PHASE VIOLATED
                                    RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE U.S
                                    CONSTITUTION.)
                      1. The roles Hogue's Colorado conviction played in his state court trial
                           proceedings                                                                 1516
                      2. The role Hogue's Colorado conviction played in his state court direct
                         appeal                                                                        1519
                      3. The role Hogue's Colorado conviction has played in his post-conviction
                           petitions and applications                                                  1520
                      4. The mentions to the jury at Hogue's trial of the Colorado conviction
                           were not a significant factor in Hogue's conviction or sentence — if
                           there was error, it was harmless                                            1521
                      5. The grounds based on mentions at Hogue's trial of the Colorado
                           conviction are barred by the state court's abuse-of-the writ determination  1522
                      6. Hogue's failure to object to evidence of the Colorado conviction for
                           the reasons he now asserts creates another procedural bar                   1522
                      7. The record does not support the assertion that the state knowingly
                           presented a false picture of Hogue's Colorado conviction                    1523
                   E.  The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Sustain a Verdict of Capital
                         Murder                                                                        1523
                          (Pertaining to the 7th ground of the petition, which reads:
                                7. THE STATE FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE
                                    SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT OF CAPITAL
                                    MURDER.)
                   F.  Hogue's Grounds Related to Evidentiary Matters are Unmeritorious                1523
                
                
                                                                                                   Page
                        (Pertaining to the 8th, 9th, 11th, and 31st grounds of the petition,
                          which read:
                               8. THE TRIAL COURT DENIED MR. HOGUE HIS
                                   RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WHEN IT PERMITTED
                                   A POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY BY RECITING
                                   A LENGTHY, UNRECORDED STATEMENT
                                   MADE BY STEVE RENICK AT THE SCENE OF
                                   THE OFFENSE.
                               9. GRISLY COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ADMITTED
                                   INTO EVIDENCE DURING THE GUILT/INNOCENCE
                                   PHASE OF TRIAL SOLELY TO INFLAME
                                   THE MINDS OF THE JURORS.
                              11. THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF UNADJUDICATED
                                   EXTRANEOUS OFFENSES AT THE PENALTY
                                   PHASE OF MR. HOGUE'S TRIAL DEPRIVED
                                   HIM OF PROTECTIONS GUARANTEED
                                   BY THE CONSTITUTION.
                              31. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO
                                   GRANT DEFENSE COUNSEL A BRIEF CONTINUANCE
                                   IN ORDER TO MEET THE STATE'S EVIDENCE
                                   OF UNADJUDICATED EXTRANEOUS OFFENSES.)
                G.  Hogue's Ground 29 Relative to Pretrial Motions is Without Merit                1525
                        (Pertaining to the 29th ground of the petition, which reads:
                              29. PRETRIAL MOTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED
                                   IN THE RECORD DESPITE TIMELY ORAL AND
                                   WRITTEN DESIGNATION.)
                H.  There was No Constitutional Error in the Denial of Hogue's Motion for
                       a Change of Venue                                                           1525
                        (Pertaining to the 30th ground of the petition, which reads:
                              30. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. HOGUE'S
                                   MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE.)
                I.  Hogue's Grounds Related to a Mental Health Expert are Without Merit            1526
                        (Pertaining to the 24th and 25th grounds of the petition, which read:
                              24. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. HOGUE
                                   THE SERVICES OF A MENTAL HEALTH
                                   EXPERT TO ASSIST IN PREPARING AND PRESENTING
                                   HIS DEFENSE.
                              25. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING MORE
                                   MONEY TO THE PROSECUTION TO USE IN EMPLOYING
                                   A PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT THAN IT
                                   GRANTED TO THE DEFENSE FOR THE SAME
                                   PURPOSE.)
                J.  Hogue Does Not Demonstrate any Brady v. Maryland Violations                    1526
                        (Pertaining to the 15th ground of the petition, which reads:
                              15. DESPITE SPECIFIC REQUESTS, THE STATE
                                   FAILED TO PRODUCE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
                                   RELATED BOTH TO GUILT/INNOCENCE
                                   AND PUNISHMENT.)
                K.  None of Hogue's Grounds Related to Jury Selection is Meritorious               1528
                        (Pertaining to the 5th, 12th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd grounds of
                           the petition, which read:
                               5. THE TRIAL COURT GAVE "UNOFFICIAL STRIKES"
                                   TO THE STATE DURING VOIR DIRE.
                              12. THE TRIAL COURT WRONGLY EXCUSED VENIRE-PERSON
                                   MARY PORTER FOR CAUSE.
                              20. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO PERMIT
                                   DEFENSE COUNSEL TO QUESTION VENIRE-PERSON
                                   JOHN WESLEY STRICKLAND CONCERNING
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Coleman v. Calderon
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 28 Julio 1998
    ...Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U.S. 293, 302, 16 S.Ct. 304, 40 L.Ed. 432 (1895) (noncitizen juror in habeas case); see also Hogue v. Scott, 874 F.Supp. 1486, 1529 (N.D.Tex.1994) (Texas law that disqualifies felons from jury service did not create a constitutionally protected interest), aff'd sub nom......
  • Hogue v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 12 Diciembre 1997
    ...prior habeases, and addressing and disposing of all of Hogue's asserted grounds for relief in his current habeas. Hogue v. Scott, 874 F.Supp. 1486 (N.D.Tex.1994). On January 18, 1995, the district court denied Hogue's Rule 59(e) motion with a brief opinion. Id. at 1545-46. Offense Circumsta......
  • Marcel v. Vannoy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • 31 Enero 2022
    ...insubstantial that the conviction would not have occurred but for the improper remarks.” Jones, 864 F.2d at 356; accord Hogue v. Scott, 874 F.Supp. 1486, 1533 (N.D. Tex. 1994). Under this test, a petitioner must demonstrate that the comment rendered his trial “fundamentally unfair,” by show......
  • U.S. v. Pepin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 6 Febrero 2008
    ...inform the jury's decision regarding future dangerousness." Gov't Br. at 38 (citing McDowell, 107 F.3d at 1366;. Hogue v. Scott, 874 F.Supp. 1486, 1509-11, 1524 (N.D.Tex.1994), aff'd, 131 F.3d 466 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1014, 118 S.Ct. 1297, 140 L.Ed.2d 334 (1998)). That may......
    • 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