Michael Dean Overst. v. Superintendent

Decision Date04 March 2011
Docket NumberCAUSE NO. 3:08-CV-226 PS
PartiesMICHAEL DEAN OVERSTREET, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

DEATH PENALTY CASE

OPINION AND ORDER

Around midnight on September 26, 1997, Michael Dean Overstreet abducted, confined, raped, and murdered 18-year-old Kelly Eckart as she was coming home from work. Overstreet was 30 years old, married with four children, and was out drinking that night. He had a history of mental illness. Overstreet was charged with capital murder, and the case against him was very strong. His DNA was found on Eckart, and there was an abundance of other evidence. Overstreet claims to have no memory of the night. The sentencing judge acknowledged that Overstreet suffered from an extreme mental disorder which she found substantially impaired his ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Nevertheless, she found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and sentenced him to death.

In the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Overstreet raises eleven grounds for relief, many of which have several subparts. But after thoroughly reviewing the state court record, I can find no basis upon which to grant relief. Therefore, the habeas corpus petition will be denied.

BACKGROUND

This case has been reviewed twice by the Indiana Supreme Court: first on direct appeal, Overstreet v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1140 (Ind. 2003) (which I'll refer to as Overstreet I); then on appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, Overstreet v. State, 877 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (Overstreet II). In a habeas corpus proceeding, "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" unless the petitioner is able to rebut that presumption "by clear and convincing evidence." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The facts as detailed below come from the Indiana Supreme Court opinions in Overstreet I and Overstreet II.

On September 26, 1997 at 10:00 pm, Kelly Eckart got off work from her job at Walmart. Her boyfriend Anthony Evans met her at the store as she ended her shift and they shopped for about an hour and then got into their respective cars and headed home. About two hours later Eckart's car was found abandoned by the side of the road, with its lights on, keys in the ignition and her purse on the front seat. Three days later, her partially clothed body was discovered in a remote area of a neighboring county; she had been shot in the head, raped and strangled to death with a strap from her bib overalls and a shoestring from one of her shoes.

A little more than a month went by and the homicide remained unsolved until Scott Overstreet entered the picture. The police received a tip that Scott Overstreet might have some information about the murder of Kelly Eckart. (From here on out I'll refer to Scott Overstreet as "Scott" to avoid confusing him with his brother, Petitioner Michael Overstreet).

Police interviewed Scott, and here's what he told them (and what he later testified to at trial): in the early morning hours of September 27, 1997, Scott received a call from his brother. Overstreet asked Scott to meet him at a local motel. Overstreet wasn't specific about what hewanted but it was clear to Scott that he needed his help. So Scott drove to the motel and met his brother in the parking lot. Overstreet informed Scott that his "girlfriend" was in his van, that they had been drinking and needed a ride. From his peripheral vision Scott said he could see something white in the back of Overstreet's van. Scott left his car in the motel parking lot, got into his brother's van and started driving Overstreet and his "girlfriend" to their destination. But about fifteen minutes into the ride, Overstreet told Scott that he had changed his mind and now wanted to go to Camp Atterbury, which is a park in a neighboring county. When questioned why he wanted to go to Camp Atterbury, Overstreet replied, "I took a girl."

Scott proceeded to a remote area of Camp Atterbury and watched as Overstreet got out of the van. Scott claims to have covered his eyes as his brother opened the rear sliding door and removed the girl from the back of the van. Overstreet asked Scott to come back and pick him up in about an hour, but Scott refused. So instead, Overstreet instructed Scott to call Overstreet's wife Melissa and have her come to a rifle range near Camp Atterbury in two hours to pick him up. Scott left in the van and went as directed to Overstreet's home where he talked with his sister-in-law, Melissa Overstreet.

Melissa picks up the story from there. She testified that Scott came to her house early in the morning and told her what had just happened. She then drove Scott back to the motel in the van so Scott could retrieve his car. In the back of the van she noticed several empty shell casings and a can of mace that she had never seen before. Melissa then went to the rifle range as Scott had instructed her (at Overstreet's direction). She arrived there at about 3:30 am and spotted her husband. According to Melissa, as Overstreet approached the van, he was sweating, his shirt was unbuttoned, and he was carrying a blanket and a rifle. When Melissa asked why he was out solate at the rifle range, Overstreet responded that if anyone asked concerning his whereabouts she should tell them that he was out that night drinking with friends.

Two days later, Melissa accompanied Overstreet to a car wash where he cleaned the back of his van. This was unusual; the van was essentially a piece of junk and hadn't been cleaned in years. According to Melissa, what made this especially odd was that, despite the fact that the entire inside of the van was filthy, Overstreet only cleaned the back of the van, ignoring everything else.

After Scott Overstreet told the police what had happened on the night in question, Scott led them to the spot at Camp Atterbury where he had dropped his brother off. Near that location the police found several of Eckart's personal items, still there a month after the murder. This, along with the statements from Scott Overstreet, led to the securing of a search warrant for Overstreet's home. In executing the warrant, police found the blanket Overstreet was carrying the night Melissa picked him up at the rifle range. They also recovered a hand-drawn map of an area of Brown County near Camp Atterbury depicting the area where Eckart's body was discovered. Fibers recovered from Eckart's shirt were consistent with fibers taken from the blanket. And fibers found on Eckart's overalls were consistent with fibers recovered from inside Overstreet's van. The police also noticed damage to the front bumper of Overstreet's van which was consistent with damage to the rear bumper of Eckart's car suggesting that the two had a fender-bender on the night Eckart disappeared.

An already strong case became airtight when DNA testing revealed that sperm found inside Eckart's body and on her underwear was consistent with that of Overstreet. The State's expert, a Professor of Medical Genetics at Indiana University School of Medicine, testified thatthe sample was consistent with Overstreet's profile and found that it occurs in 1 in 4 trillion people.

The State charged Overstreet with murder, felony murder, rape as a Class B felony, and confinement as a Class B felony in Johnson County Superior Court. The State sought the death penalty based on three aggravating circumstances: (1) that Overstreet committed the murder while also committing or attempting to commit rape; (2) that Kelly Eckart was the victim of rape for which Overstreet had been convicted; and (3) that Kelly Eckart was the victim of confinement for which Overstreet has been convicted.

The trial was held from April 24 through May 18, 2000, and Overstreet was convicted on all counts. At the time of Overstreet's trial, under Indiana law, the jury made a recommendation to the judge as to whether the death penalty should be imposed but ultimately it was for the court to decide the sentence. In Overstreet's case, the jury recommended the death penalty. After conducting an independent evaluation, the trial court accepted the jury's recommendation. Among other things, the trial court determined that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the charged aggravators-the intentional killing while committing rape-outweighed Overstreet's mitigating evidence including evidence of his mental illness. The Court therefore found that death was the appropriate sentence. The trial court entered judgment sentencing Overstreet to death for murder, and imposing consecutive sentences of twenty years for each of the rape and criminal confinement convictions.

On direct appeal the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Overstreet's convictions and death sentence. Overstreet I, 783 N.E.2d 1168. Overstreet filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and an evidentiary hearing was held and presided over by the same judge who presided at trial.Eventually, the post-conviction court denied the petition in an 86-page order entitled Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment on Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. ECF 25-16 at 4.1On November 27, 2007, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. Overstreet II, 877 N.E. 2d at 175.

The present petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 followed. As might be expected, the briefing is extensive. I held a lengthy oral argument on the petition and will now resolve all of the issues presented.

DISCUSSION

Overstreet presents eleven grounds for relief in his habeas corpus petition. Additional facts and applicable legal standards are provided as necessary in each section below.

Ground I: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel--Conveyance of the Plea Agreement

Overstreet's first ground for relief is that his two trial lawyers were ineffective...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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