Johnson v. Nagle

Decision Date23 July 1999
Docket NumberNo. CV-93-N-1121-S.,CV-93-N-1121-S.
Citation58 F.Supp.2d 1303
PartiesAnthony Keith JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. John E. NAGLE, Warden and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Respondents.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

John H Schafer, Sean F Foley, Deborah Forbes, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, Debra Ann Palmer, Schiff Hardin & Waite, Washington, DC, for Anthony Keith Johnson, plaintiff.

J Clayton Crenshaw, James H Evans, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for State of Alabama, defendant.

Bill Pryor, J Clayton Crenshaw, James H Evans, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for John Nagle, Warden, defendant.

Table of Contents

                  I. Procedural History ................................................................. 1314
                     A. Trial and Direct Appeal ......................................................... 1314
                        1. Trial Evidence ............................................................... 1314
                        2. Proceedings on Direct Appeal ................................................. 1316
                     B. Post-Trial Proceedings in State Court ........................................... 1317
                     C. The Federal Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ................................ 1324
                 II. Analysis of the Claims ............................................................. 1327
                     A. Introduction .................................................................... 1327
                     B. Intent, participation, and the "Third Man" Defense .............................. 1329
                        1. Sufficiency of the Evidence .................................................. 1331
                             i. Procedural Default on the Sufficiency of the Evidence Claim ............. 1331
                            ii. Merits of the Claim ..................................................... 1332
                        2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ............................................ 1334
                             i. Claims of Ineffective Assistance at Trial Generally ..................... 1334
                            ii. Counsel's Alleged Failure to Understand an Essential Element of
                                  Capital Murder ........................................................ 1335
                           iii. United States v. Cronic ................................................. 1337
                            iv. Strickland v. Washington ................................................ 1339
                                a. Petitioner's Allegations ............................................. 1342
                                b. Ineffective Trial Strategy ........................................... 1342
                                   (1) Pre-Trial Choice of Strategy ..................................... 1343
                                   (2) Failure to Argue Intent During Trial ............................. 1344
                                c. Failure of Argue Intent to the Judge ................................. 1346
                                d. Defense Counsel's Argument to the Jury ............................... 1349
                                e. Failure to Object to the Prosecution's Improper Closing Argument ..... 1350
                                f. Accumulated Attorney Error ........................................... 1351
                             v. Failure to Give a Felony Murder Instruction ............................. 1352
                            vi. The Actual Innocence Exception to Procedural Default .................... 1352
                     C. Other Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ............................... 1353
                        1. Other Claims of Trial Counsel Error .......................................... 1353
                             i. Cross-examination of David Lindsey ...................................... 1353
                                a. Allegedly Contradictory Statements ................................... 1355
                                b. Counsel's Efforts to Undermine Lindsey's Character ................... 1356
                                c. Failure To Present Conflicting Witness Testimony ..................... 1356
                            ii. Ineffective Assistance Because of Claimed Improper Objection to
                                 Statistical Evidence ................................................... 1357
                        2. Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on Appeal ........................ 1359
                             i. Adequacy of Statement of Facts On Appeal ................................ 1360
                            ii. Adequacy of Issues Presented on Appeal .................................. 1360
                           iii. Brief to Alabama Supreme Court on Direct Appeal ......................... 1362
                     D. The Brady Claim ................................................................. 1362
                        1. The "Exculpatory Evidence" Requirement ....................................... 1363
                        2. The Suppression Requirement .................................................. 1363
                        3. The Materiality Requirement .................................................. 1364
                     E. The Cage Claim .................................................................. 1365
                        1. Procedural Default ........................................................... 1366
                        2. The Merits of the Claim ...................................................... 1366
                     F. Fourth Amendment Claim .......................................................... 1373
                        1. Procedural Default ........................................................... 1373
                        2. Stone v. Powell ..................................................... 1374
                        3. Merits of the Claims .................................................................. 1376
                             i. The Bullet .............................................................. 1376
                            ii. The .357 Magnum Revolver ................................................ 1378
                III. Conclusion ......................................................................... 1381
                
Memorandum of Opinion

EDWIN L. NELSON, District Judge.

The court has for consideration the petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on behalf of Anthony Keith Johnson, an Alabama state prisoner, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. On this petition Johnson is represented by counsel from the firm of Covington & Burling. Counsel for the State of Alabama have filed a Habeas Corpus Checklist, a voluminous record of the proceedings from the Alabama trial and appellate courts, a revised Habeas Corpus Checklist, and an answer to the petition.

The court has conducted a hearing on the narrow issue of what information the petitioner conveyed to his trial counsel upon which they relied in formulating their trial strategy. Among other things, the petitioner has alleged that his trial attorneys rendered him ineffective assistance by choosing a flawed defense strategy based upon a mistaken understanding of the law and that the trial judge gave a constitutionally flawed jury instruction defining reasonable doubt. The court will address these and other matters infra.

I. Procedural History.
A. Trial and Direct Appeal.
1. Trial Evidence.

On direct appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals set forth the facts established at trial as follows:

The record reveals that on the evening of March 11, 1984, the victim, Kenneth Cantrell, and his wife, Nell Cantrell, were at their home in Hartselle, Alabama. The Cantrells had been in the jewelry business for 24 years and at this time were conducting the business from their home.

Mrs. Cantrell received a phone call from a person identifying himself as Bill Spears from Florence, Alabama, and he asked to speak to Mr. Cantrell. He told Mr. Cantrell that he would like to purchase some jewelry from him, and they arranged a meeting a short time thereafter at the Cantrell home. Mr. Cantrell was apparently suspicious of the caller, because he asked his wife to hide his wallet and bring him his .38 caliber pistol.

When Mrs. Cantrell heard a knock at the door, which led from their carport into the combined living room and dining room area of their home, she went to answer it. She observed that the man already had the storm door open, but she had to open the door to hear what he had to say. When she opened the door she encountered a man between 45 and 50 years of age who identified himself as Bill Spears. She noticed that he held one hand behind his back and she asked if he was concealing something. He said that he was not and showed her his hand.

At the same time he motioned for another man who had been hiding in the carport to come forward. At this, the man already at the door grabbed Mrs. Cantrell, and the other man, wearing a blue bandana over his face and brandishing a "real shiney" gun in his hand, announced "This is a holdup."

Johnson v. State, 521 So.2d 1006, 1007-08 (Ala.Crim.App.1986).

At that point, according to the testimony at trial, Mrs. Cantrell broke free from the man holding her, eluded a second attempt by the first man to grab her, and fell at her husband's feet between the couch and coffee table. The first man crossed the room and positioned himself behind a couch he had overturned. The second man then entered the house and began shooting. During or just before the gunfight, Mr. Cantrell said, "Freeze ... I have got you covered," to which one of the men replied "No, we have got you, Cantrell."1 While on the floor, Mrs. Cantrell was able to observe that one of the men wore a pair of brown boots. She also testified that only two guns were fired during the exchange, and that the shots fired at her husband appeared to come from the direction of the second intruder. After several shots had been fired, there was a pause in the gunfire. One of the men said, "Come on in, Bubba ... we have got him." As the two men in the room made their way to the door, but before they reached it, Mr. Cantrell fired one...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Webster v. Chappell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • June 4, 2014
    ...but whether they subjected his testimony to the adversarial testing that is integral to the trial process." Johnson v. Nagle, 58 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1356 n.42 (N.D. Ala. 1999), aff'd. 256 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, petitioner's counsel was not required to highlight Detective Rock's inc......
  • Davis v. Comm'r of Corr.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • November 17, 2015
    ...assistance of counsel claims, prejudice may be presumed when counsel "wasn't really acting as a lawyer at all." Johnson v. Nagle, 58 F.Supp.2d 1303, 1338 (N.D.Ala.1999), aff'd, 256 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir.2001).Cronic nonetheless "provides a reviewing court with some difficulty in application";......
  • State v. Abdelhaq
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • April 16, 2003
    ...(5th Cir.1994) (recognizing that overnight guest of hotel resident had standing to object to search of hotel room); Johnson v. Nagle, 58 F.Supp.2d 1303, 1379 (N.D.Ala.1999) (same): People v. Olson, 198 Ill.App.3d 675, 144 Ill.Dec. 806, 556 N.E.2d 273, 277 (1990) (same); People v. Ali, 131 A......
  • Johnson v. State of Alabama
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • July 10, 2001
    ...the district court's order as well as the opinion on direct review of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. See Johnson v. Nagle, 58 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1314-15 (N.D. Ala. 1999); Johnson v. State, 521 So. 2d 1006, 1007-08 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986), aff'd, 521 So. 2d 1018 (Ala. 1988), cert. deni......
  • 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