Miller v. Lockhart, PB-C-81-152.
Citation | 861 F. Supp. 1425 |
Decision Date | 16 August 1994 |
Docket Number | No. PB-C-81-152.,PB-C-81-152. |
Parties | Eddie Lee MILLER, Petitioner, v. A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
E. Alvin Schay, Arkansas Death Penalty Resource Center, Inc., Ray E. Hartenstein, Little Rock, AR, for petitioner.
Kelly K. Hill and Jack Ward Gillean, Atty. General's Office, Little Rock, AR, for respondent.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 20, 1979, Eddie Lee Miller, an African-American male, was convicted by a Crittenden County, Arkansas, jury of capital felony murder in connection with the robbery and killing of W.F. Bolin, a white male, on November 3, 1978. Miller was sentenced to death by electrocution. On May 4, 1981, Miller filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus raising fourteen separate grounds for relief.
After carefully considering Miller's claims, this Court is persuaded that both the conviction and sentence are invalid for the following reasons which are discussed hereinafter:
On the morning of November 3, 1978, Miller entered the vacuum cleaner and sewing machine sales and repair shop of W.F. Bolin in Blytheville, Arkansas. Bolin was alone. Miller consumed approximately ten minutes viewing and inspecting merchandise and disclosing information for a credit application just before robbing and killing Bolin by discharging four shots from a .38 caliber pistol. Miller seized a cash box which contained approximately fifty-five dollars.
Jim Hudson, who operates a barber shop adjacent to Bolin's store, heard the shots and verbal expressions "no, no" and recognized the voice as that of Bolin. Hudson decided to enter Bolin's store from a side entrance in order to determine what was taking place and offer assistance. As Hudson pushed open the door to enter, Hudson faced Miller who had both hands on the metal cash box in front of Hudson with "fingers on the bottom, thumbs on the top." Miller told Hudson "You get in here." But Hudson, instead, backed out of the door and stationed himself between the front door entrance to Bolin's store and the side door entrance he had just exited. Miller exited the side door and fled in the opposite direction from Hudson's position to a back alley and Hudson immediately reported the incident to the Blytheville Police Department and gave a description of Miller and described the clothing he was wearing.
During the afternoon of November 3, 1978, Blytheville Police officers, after being satisfied that Eddie Lee Miller was the person being sought, obtained an arrest warrant for Miller as well as a search warrant for Miller's personal residence. Miller was later charged by felony information with the crime of capital felony murder and was convicted on March 20, 1979.
Miller appealed his conviction and sentence to the Arkansas Supreme Court. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. However, three justices of the seven judges, including the Chief Justice, dissented. Chief Justice Fogleman was of the opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding that Miller knowingly created a great risk of death to a person other than the victim; and that a jury could not have found this circumstance to exist without gross speculation. In a separate dissenting opinion in which Justice Mays joined, Justice Purtle was of the view that the evidence was deficient not only from the standpoint of knowingly creating a great risk of death to a person other than the victim, but equally as well that Miller did, beyond a reasonable doubt, commit the capital felony murder for the purpose of avoiding or preventing an arrest or effecting an escape from custody. Miller v. State, 269 Ark. 341, 605 S.W.2d 430 (1980).
The United States Supreme Court denied Miller's petition for writ of certiorari on March 30, 1981, with two justices dissenting. Miller v. State, 450 U.S. 1035, 101 S.Ct. 1750, 68 L.Ed.2d 232 (1981).
On April 20, 1981, Miller's execution date was set for May 20, 1981. A stay of execution from the Arkansas Supreme Court was sought on April 24, 1981, so that Miller could seek post-conviction relief from that court under its Criminal Procedure Rule 37. The application was denied by the Arkansas Supreme Court without an opinion on May 4, 1981, with one justice willing to grant the stay. On May 4, 1981, Miller filed an application for a stay of execution with this Court along with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 11, 1981, following a hearing on May 8, 1981, this Court stayed Miller's execution until further order of the Court in order to permit Miller to pursue post-conviction relief with the Arkansas Supreme Court.
On September 28, 1981, the Arkansas Supreme Court denied Miller permission to seek post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 37, Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Miller v. State, 273 Ark. 508, 621 S.W.2d 482 (1981).
On April 7, 1989, Miller filed his second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus in an effort to reflect the issues relied upon in view of changes in the law since the filing of his initial petition.1 An evidentiary hearing was conducted by the Court on March 13, 14, and 15, 1991. However, the record remained open to allow the parties to proffer additional evidence, if desired.
Miller asserts that he was denied due process of law and rights secured under the Eighth Amendment by the prosecuting attorney's improper and prejudicial remarks during closing argument at the sentencing phase of his trial. The remarks complained of, argues Miller, introduced factors that are wholly unrelated to the blameworthiness of Miller, thus, created the risk that the death sentence imposed was based on matters irrelevant to the sentencing process; impaired and prejudiced rights secured to Miller, i.e., right against compulsory self-incrimination; and minimized the jury's understanding and acceptance of the importance of its role in determining whether the death penalty was the appropriate punishment. The following constitute the expressions complained of in the order in which they occurred:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ford v. Lockhart, Civ. No. PB-C-82-431.
...would on occasion, either by request or for some other reason, not serve the summons at all. For example, at the evidentiary hearing in Miller v. Lockhart,19 Thomas Crosthwait, a former Mississippi County Sheriff, police officer and Arkansas State Trooper, stated that he knew of a farmer wh......
-
Pruett v. Norris, Civil No. PB-C-88-195.
...2.25 However, the Court cannot find that the instructions or the verdict form runs afoul of McKoy or Mills. Unlike Miller v. Lockhart, 861 F.Supp. 1425, 1441 (E.D.Ark. 1994), aff'd on other grounds, 65 F.3d 676 (8th Cir.1995), the court did not inform the jury that its findings regarding mi......
-
Miller v. Lockhart
...sentence on the additional ground of errors in the penalty phase of the trial. The District Court's opinion is reported at 861 F.Supp. 1425 (E.D.Ark.1994). We affirm the Miller was convicted on March 20, 1979, of the murder of W.F. Bolin. Miller is black, and Bolin was white. The venire sum......
-
Ford v. Norris, 94-3469
...parties in this case stipulated that the record from another habeas case that was pending before the district court, Miller v. Lockhart, 861 F.Supp. 1425 (E.D.Ark.1994), would be incorporated into the record here (and vice versa, i.e., the record from this case was incorporated into Miller ......