Lockhart v. Patrick, CIVIL NO. 3:CV-06-1291

• Decision Date: 26 August 2014
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 3:CV-06-1291
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
• Parties: EMMETT LOCKHART, Petitioner v. GEORGE N. PATRICK, Respondent

EMMETT LOCKHART, Petitioner v. GEORGE N. PATRICK, Respondent

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-06-1291

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

August 26, 2014

(Judge Caputo)

MEMORANDUM

I. Introduction

Petitioner Emmett Lockhart, a state prisoner confined at the Houtzdale State Correctional Institution in Houtzdale, Pennsylvania, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Lockhart, proceeding pro se, challenges his 2001 Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, convictions for first degree murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, theft by unlawful taking, abuse of a corpse, criminal conspiracy homicide, criminal conspiracy arson, criminal conspiracy robbery, criminal conspiracy theft by unlawful taking, and criminal conspiracy abuse of corpse. On July 23, 2001, Mr. Lockhart was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the homicide conviction, and to a concurrent aggregate term of ten to twenty years' incarceration on the remaining counts.¹

Mr. Lockhart presents seven grounds for relief. (Doc. 2, ECF pp. 2-3, Pet.'s Mem. in Supp. Habeas Pet.) Respondent has filed a response to the petition, supporting memorandum of law and exhibits. (Docs. 22, 23 and 24.) Mr. Lockhart did not file a response to Respondent's filing.

After a thorough review of the entire state court record, the pleadings made available to the court, and the applicable law, the court finds that, for the reasons set forth below, Mr. Lockhart's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

II. Background & Procedural History

A. The Murder, Investigation and Trial Issues

Due to the issues raised by Mr. Lockhart, a detailed discussion of the facts that led to his conviction is required.

In 2000, the victim, Sydney Bull, was a senior at Shippensburg University. (Doc. 24-2, ECF p. 50). On the morning of Monday, April 24, 2000, he had just returned to Shippensburg University after spending Easter weekend with his family in Norristown, Pennsylvania. (Id., ECF p. 46.) He spent most of the day with his cousin, Lance Cpl. William Gant, who was visiting the area after completing Marine Corps Basic training. (Doc. 24-3, ECF p. 102.) The two cousins had breakfast together and then planned to lift weights. (Id., ECF p. 7.) When leaving Sydney Bull's apartment for the gym, the cousins encountered Mr. Lockhart, who was known to Lance Corporal Gant as "Hassan". (Id.) After speaking to the victim, Mr. Lockhart got back into his car and left. (Id., ECF p. 9.)

After weight lifting, the two cousins returned to Mr. Bull's apartment. Their plan was for Mr. Bull to drop off his cousin around 4:00 p.m., so he could catch a 5:00 p.m. bus. (Id., ECF pp. 13 and 41.) However, they were still in the apartment around 3:30 p.m. or 3:45 p.m. because Mr. Bull was waiting for Hassan to return. (Id., ECF p. 14.) At this point Lance Corporal Gant grew concerned that he would miss his bus. (Id.) Finally, Mr. Bull agreed to drop his cousin off at his girlfriend's house so that she could take him to the bus. (Id., ECF p. 15.) On the way, they passed Hassan in his car. Both cars pulled over, Mr. Bull got out of his car and went over to speak with Hassan. (Id.) After a brief conversation, Mr. Bull returned to his car and told Lance Corporal Gant that he was going to meet up with Hassan later that evening. (Id., ECF p. 16.)

The evening of April 24, 2000, Sydney Bull had a meeting at a classmate's apartment to work on a group project that was due the following day. (Id., ECF p. 51-53; Doc. 24-11, ECF p. 90.) At approximately 9:30 p.m., Mr. Bull looked at something in his bookbag and then asked to use the phone. (Doc. 24-3, ECF p. 54-55.) He told his study group he had to take care of something and would be back in 10 minutes to finish his part of the presentation. (Id., ECF p. 55.) He did not take his bookbag with him. (Id., ECF p. 63.) He never returned to the study group that evening or class the next day. (Id., ECF p. 56.)

On the first day of trial Dontae Chambers testified. (Doc. 24-3, ECF pp. 74-99; Doc. 24-4, ECF pp. 1-45; Doc. 24-5, ECF pp. 1-84.) While he admitted he had been arrested and charged for his involvement in the death of Sydney Bull, hetestified, and his counsel (Attorney Abeln) confirmed, that he had not been offered or promised any deals by the Cumberland County District Attorney's office in exchange for his testimony. (Doc. 24-3, ECF pp. 71-73 and 76-77.) He hoped that by testifying he would receive some leniency with respect to his sentencing, but was not guaranteed anything. (Id.) He then proceeded to testify on direct examination August 7, 2014 as to the victim, Sydney Bull's, last hours of life. (Doc. 24-3, ECF pp. 74-99; Doc. 24-4, ECF pp. 1-45; Doc. 24-5, ECF pp. 1-84.)

Mr. Chambers testified that on the evening of April 24, 2000, he, Mr. Lockhart,² and Mr. Norris (co-defendant)³ were smoking marijuana at the Chi Gamma Iota (XGI) Fraternity House near Shippensburg University where Mr. Norris resided. (Doc. 24-3, ECF pp. 85-88.) Mr. Chambers knew Mr. Lockhart and Mr. Norris by their nicknames, Hassan and Smokey. (Id., ECF p. 87.) While there, Mr. Norris asked Mr. Chambers to help them rob someone. Dontae Chambers agreed. (Id., ECF pp. 88-89.) The three men got into a blue Ford Probe. (Id., ECF pp. 89, 90-91.) Emmett Lockhart drove co-defendant Matthew Norris and Dontae Chambers to the Heiges Field House parking lot at Shippensburg University where they picked up Sydney Bull. (Id., ECF pp. 87, 96, 99 and 192.) Mr. Norris then gave Mr. Lockhart directions to the mountains near Shippensburg, or an area called "the wall." (Id., ECF p. 99; Doc. 24-4, ECF p. 3.) During the car ride, Mr. Norris pointed a pistol grip shotgun at Mr. Bull. (Doc. 24-3, ECF p. 99; Doc. 24-4, ECF p. 6.) Uponarriving at their destination, Mr. Lockhart let Sydney Bull out of the back seat of the car while Mr. Norris and Mr. Chambers got out on the right side of the car. (Doc. 24-3, ECF p. 99.) As Mr. Norris started walking Sydney Bull at gunpoint into the woods, Mr. Lockhart retrieved a red gas can out of the trunk of the car. (Doc. 24-4, ECF p. 7.) After joining Mr. Norris, Mr. Chambers and Mr. Bull, Mr. Lockhart put down the gas can and rushed at the victim and they started to wrestle. (Id., ECF p. 8.) When Mr. Bull escaped Mr. Lockhart's clutches, Mr. Norris pointed the shotgun at Sydney Bull. (Id., ECF p. 9.) Mr. Bull begged Mr. Norris for two or three minutes not to shoot him. (Id., ECF p. 10.) Mr. Norris then shot Sydney Bull in the face, specifically in the nose and mouth area. (Id., ECF p. 11.) The shotgun blast propelled Sydney Bull backward landing on his back. (Id.) Mr. Norris grabbed the victim's duffel bag and threw it to the side of the victim and then proceeded digging through Sydney Bull's pockets removing money, his pager and other things. (Id., ECF p. 12.) In the interim, Mr. Lockhart poured gasoline on the body from head to toe. (Id., ECF p. 13-14.) Mr. Lockhart placed the gas can down approximately 10 to 20 feet from the victim's head and lit the gas can on fire. (Id., ECF pp. 15-16.) Mr. Norris lit a matchbook and tossed it on the victim's torso. (Id., ECF p. 14.) The fire engulfed the body and the surrounding ground. (Id., ECF p. 15.) Mr. Lockhart then drove Mr. Norris and Mr. Chambers back to Shippensburg. (Id., ECF pp. 19-21.) Mr. Lockhart and Mr. Norris instructed Dontae Chambers that if anyone asked, he had not seen either of them that day, didn't know where they were, and had not met with them. (Id., ECF p. 20.)

During the murder investigation, Dontae Chambers told the police the story of what happened to Sydney Bull, as set forth above. (Doc. 24-4, ECF pp. 30-41 and 58.) He testified that the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) investigators did not provide him with any details of the crime scene or the crime itself. (Id., ECF p. 34.) Although he denied any involvement in the victim's death numerous times when interviewed by the police, he did so because he was scared, knew he could be facing the death penalty or life imprisonment. (Id., ECF p. 35.)

Toward the end of Mr. Chambers' direct testimony, the prosecution asked him if he told the police that an individual by the name of Bernard Adams was up on the mountain the day of the murder. He responded "Yes," that he did give the police Bernard Adams' name, but further testified that, in fact, Bernard Adams was not up on the mountain. (Id.) Mr. Chambers stated he did not know why he gave the police Bernard Adams' name except for the fact that he had his "little brother selling drugs for him." (Id., ECF pp. 35-36.) The trial court rested for the day upon the conclusion of Mr. Chambers' direct testimony. (Id., ECF p. 39.) Mr. Norris' counsel immediately requested a mistrial based the Commonwealth's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. Defense counsel learned for the first time during Mr. Chambers' direct examination that he had previously implicated Bernard Adams as a person involved in the murder. Mr. Lockhart's counsel joined in the motion. (Id., ECF pp. 41-42; Doc. 24-5, ECF pp. 10-12.) Ultimately the Commonwealth conceded that Mr. Chambers' statement concerning Bernard Adams "was not given to the defense, ... [i]t was inadvertent on [the Commonwealth's] part." (Doc. 24-5,ECF p. 7.) Without the jury present, the Commonwealth explained that the PSP Trooper who interviewed Mr. Chambers reported that he "claimed to be up at the wall with Bernard Adams waiting for Sydney Bull to come up with some other individuals." (Id., ECF p. 8.) This information does not appear in any notes or reports related to the case. (Id., ECF p. 18.) However, the Troopers who interviewed Mr. Chambers and were present at the time of this declaration were available for defense counsel to interview. (Id., ECF pp. 12-13.) The Commonwealth stressed that although Mr. Chambers had identified Bernard Adams as being on the mountain, he did not implicate Bernard...