James v. Culliver

• Decision Date: 30 September 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. CV-10-S-2929-S
• Parties: JOE NATHAN JAMES, JR., Petitioner, v. GRANT CULLIVER, Warden, Holman State Prison; and RICHARD F. ALLEN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

JOE NATHAN JAMES, JR., Petitioner, v. GRANT CULLIVER, Warden, Holman State Prison; and RICHARD F. ALLEN,Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Respondents.

Civil Action No. CV-10-S-2929-S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

September 30, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERS

Petitioner, Joe Nathan James, Jr., seeks habeas corpus relief from his state court conviction for capital murder and resulting death sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The discussion of his claims is arranged as follows.

Table of Contents

I. THE OFFENSE OF CONVICTION.........10

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.........12

III. INTRODUCTION TO DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS: The Scope of Federal Habeas Review.........22

A. The Exhaustion of State Court Remedies Doctrine: The First Condition Precedent to Federal Habeas Review.........22

B. The Procedural Default Doctrine: The Second Condition Precedent to Federal Habeas Review.........25

1. Alternative holdings.........262. Determining the effective basis for the state courts' rulings.........28

3. Adequate and independent state grounds for denying relief.........29

a. "Independent of the federal question".........29

b. "Adequate to support the state court's judgment".........30

4. The grounds for obtaining post-conviction relief under Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32......... 31

5. The procedural rules relied upon by the state courts when disposing of some of the present petitioner's post-conviction claims for relief.........33

a. Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a).........33

b. Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c).........34

c. Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.3.........35

d. Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.6(b).........37

e. Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.7(d).........39

f. Alabama Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(1).........41

g. Alabama Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(10).........42

6. Overcoming procedural default.........44

a. The "cause and prejudice" standard.........45

i."Cause for the default".........45

ii. "Prejudice".........47

b. The "fundamental miscarriage of justice" standard.........48

C. The Statutory Overlay: The Effect of "the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996" on Habeas Review.........49

1. 28 U.S.C § 2254(e)(1).........50

2. 28 U.S.C § 2254(d).........52

a. The meaning of § 2254(d)(1)'s "contrary to" clause.........54

b. The meaning of § 2254(d)(1)'s "unreasonable application" clause.........55

c. The meaning of § 2254(d)(2)'s clause addressing an "unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding".........58

d. Evaluating state court factual determinations under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(2) and (e)(1).........59

D. The Burden of Proof and Heightened Pleading Requirements For Habeas Petitions.........60

E. An Introduction To Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims.........63

1. The performance prong.........65

2. The prejudice prong.........69

3. Deference accorded state court findings of historical fact and decisions on the merits when evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims.........70

IV. THE LIST OF PETITIONER'S CLAIMS.........72

V. PETITIONER'S GUILT-PHASE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS.........78

A. The Effect of Grossly Inadequate Compensation on the Effort Devoted to Petitioner's Defense by Counsel.........78

1. Procedural default.........78

2. Merits.........81

B. Trial Counsel Labored Under a Debilitating Conflict of Interest Which Led to a Complete Breakdown in the Attorney-Client Relationship and, Thereby, Deprived Petitioner of the Effective Assistance of Counsel.........85

1. Procedural default.........86

2. Merits.........87

C. Trial Counsel Failed to Adequately Investigate the Capital Charge.........90

1. Failure to investigate the victim's background — the gateway for pursuit of a self-defense strategy.........91

2. Failure to investigate James's Atlanta excursion.........101

3. Failure to investigate James's mental health.........103

4. Failure to contact, interview, and investigate the State's witnesses.........110

5. Failure to investigate defense witnesses.........111

6. Failure to investigate "the apparent" contamination of the crime scene.........112

a. Procedural default 113

b. Merits.........113

D. Failure to Procure Expert Assistance.........116

1. Failure to obtain forensic experts.........116

a. Procedural default.........117

b. Merits.........118

2. Failure to obtain mental health experts.........119

E. Failure to Investigate or Challenge Petitioner's Competence to Stand Trial.........126

F. Deficient Performance During Jury Selection.........131

1. Procedural default.........132

2. Merits.........132

a. Questionnaires and voir dire.........133

b. Failure to challenge for bias.........134

c. Failure to question venire about their past exposure to criminal acts.........135

d. Failure to question prospective juror Bobby Boyer about his prior criminal history.........137

e. Failure to question prospective jurors about their prior experiences as jurors.........138

f. Failure to discover one juror's mental illness.........139

g. Failure to conduct individual, sequestered voir dire.........140

h. Failure to the object to the State's race- and gender-discrimination when exercising peremptory challenges.........141

G. Failing to File Adequate Motions in limine, Adequate Objections to the Introduction of Prejudicial and Inadmissible Evidence at Trial, Adequate Objections to James's Absence From the Courtroom During Critical Stages of the Trial, and Adequate Objections to Prosecutorial Misconduct During Closing Argument.........146

1. Failing to object in limine or during trial to the admission of extraordinarily prejudicial, gruesome, and irrelevant autopsy photographs.........150

2. Failing to stipulate that Faith Hall was deceased.........150

3. Failing to object to the testimony of the State's medical examiner as an expert witness.........150

4. Failing to object to lengthy, irrelevant, and extraordinarily prejudicial testimony from the States medical examiner regarding procedures applied to the victim by paramedics and other medical personnel after the shooting.........150

5. Failing to obtain a clear ruling on defendant's motion in limine seeking the exclusion of, and, failing to object during trial to the admission of, references to James's prior trial.........164

6. Failing to obtain clear rulings on all motions filed by defense counsel during James's first, 1996 trial, which were adopted for purposes of the second trial by Virginia Vinson's December 29, 1998 pretrial motion.........167

7. Failing to object in limine or during trial to the admission of references to James's arrest in California.........168

8. Failing to object to irrelevant, prejudicial testimony by prosecution witnesses.........171

9. Failing to object when the trial judge proceeded to take evidence during James's absence from the courtroom.........174

10. Failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct: i.e., the prosecutor's prejudicial references to James during closing argument.........176

H. Failing to Present a Coherent or Viable Defense, and, Conceding Petitioner's Guilt During Closing Argument.........179

I. Failing to Request a Continuance When Counsel Learned that James had been the Victim of an Attempted Sexual Assault in Jail on the Night Prior to the Beginning of Trial.........183

1. Procedural default.........184

2. Merits.........185

J. Ineffective Cross-Examination of the State's Witnesses.........189

1. Procedural default.........190

2. Merits.........192

K. Failing to Object to the Trial Judge's Improper Instructions at the Conclusion of the Guilt Phase.........195

1. Procedural default.........200

2. Merits.........201

L. Failing to "Federalize" Objections.........204

M. Trial Counsel's Peformance was Prejudicially Deficient Because Counsel's Failures to Object, or to Take the Affirmative Actions Detailed in this Claim, Resulted in Procedural Defaults With Respect to Some Issues.........205

N. The Cumulative Effect of Trial Counsel's Guilt-Phase Errors Prejudiced James, Even If No Single Error, Standing Alone, Did So.........206

VI. PETITIONER'S PENALTY-PHASE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS.........209

A. Failing to Conduct Any Investigation of Petitioner's Background to Obtain Mitigation or Social History Evidence, and, Failing to Present Such Evidence During the Penalty Phase.........209

B. Penalty-Phase Closing Argument.........240

C. Failing to Object to Prosecutorial Misconduct During Penalty-Phase Closing Argument.........247

D. Failing to Request Specific Penalty-Phase Jury Instructions.........253

E. Failing to Object to Use of the Presentence Investigation Report and Sentencing Order From the First Trial.........259

F. The Cumulative Effect of Trial Counsels' Penalty-Phase Errors Prejudiced James, Even If No Single Error, Standing Alone, Did So......... 263

VII. PETITIONER'S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL CLAIMS.........264

A. Failing to Argue That the Trial Judge Erroneously Overruled Defense Counsel's Objection to the Prosecutor's Addition of a New Aggravating Circumstance.........267

B. Failing to Raise Some Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel Claims in the Opening Brief on Direct Appeal.........270

C. Failure to Argue That the Trial Judge Did Not Instruct the Jury as Required by Rule 19.3(b), Ala. R. Crim. P.........273

D. Failure to "Federalize" Claims.........275

VIII. PETITIONER'S SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS.........276

A. Petitioner was Deprived of His Constitutional Right to the Assistance at Trial of a Competent Mental Health Professional.........276B. The Trial Judge Erred in Failing to Order, sua sponte, a Competency Evaluation of Petitioner.........276

C. Petitioner Was Not Competent to Proceed to Trial.........276

1. Procedural default.........278

2. Merits 280

D. The Prosecution Failed to Comply With Discovery Obligations Under Brady v. Maryland, and Committed Other Misconduct at Trial.........287

1. Procedural default.........288

2. Merits.........289

E. Petitioner Was...