Prible v. Davis
| Decision Date | 20 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | H-09-CV-1896 |
| Parties | RONALD JEFFERY PRIBLE, Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
In 2002, a Texas jury convicted Ronald Jeffery Prible of capital murder. He was sentenced to death. After unsuccessfully seeking state appellate and post-conviction remedies, Prible filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2009. Now before the Court is Prible's Fourth Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The matters raised by Prible's petition have required significant factual development, extensive briefing, and serious judicial consideration. For the reasons described below, the Court finds that Prible is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
At around 6:00 a.m. on April 24, 1999, a neighbor saw smoke pouring from Esteban "Steve" Herrera's house. Authorities found Herrera lying in the middle of the garage in a pool of blood. Four bodies were found inside the smoky house. Herrera's girlfriend Nilda Tirado lay face-down on a couch inside, naked from the waist down. Three children were found dead in the bedrooms.
A forensic investigation revealed that the assailant had used an accelerant to create a flashfire that self-extinguished, but not before suffocating the sleeping children. Both Tirado and Herrera had died from a single gunshot to the back of the head. Both adults had died before the fire started.
Prible, a friend of Herrera and Tirado, was quickly identified as a suspect. The police investigation established that Prible had spent the evening with Herrera. Herrera's brother-in-law had accompanied Prible and Herrera to a club until around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of the murders. They returned to the Herrera home. Herrera and Prible were in the garage playing pool when the brother-in-law left.
Scientific evidence confirmed that Prible had been present in the Herrera home. A forensic examination uncovered sperm cells from oral, vaginal, and anal swabs taken from Tirado's corpse. Herrera's DNA matched the anal and vaginal swabs. DNA testing identified Prible as the source of the semen found on the oral swab.
The police questioned Prible, but he disclaimed any involvement in the murder. Prible admitted that he had been in the Herrera home after returning from the club, but said that Herrera drove him home at around 4:00 a.m. When the police asked what he would do if they found his DNA at the scene, he added that he had been having an affair with Tirado and had engaged in consensual oral sex with her.
Police searched the home of Prible's parents, where Prible also resided. The search uncovered guns and ammunition. A firearms examiner later testified at trial that a magazine found at Prible's residence could hold bullets similar to those found at the crime scene. But the murder weapon was never recovered. Investigators could not find blood stains, accelerant, or any forensic evidence on Prible or his clothing.
In addition, Prible had an alibi. A teenage neighbor saw Herrera drop Prible off at his parents' home in the early morning hours.
Prible's DNA alone was not enough to pursue prosecution. Prible was not arrested, let alone indicted, in connection with the murders for two years. The case went cold.
In early 2001, Harris County Assistant District Attorney Kelly Siegler was asked to review the cold case. By that point, no new information had been developed that would come out at trial. The State, nonetheless, charged Prible with capital murder on July 5, 2001.
At that time, Prible was housed in the federal prison FCI Beaumont Low for a federal bank robbery conviction.1 Rather than be transferred to Harris County custody for the state capital murder charges, however, on the day Prible was charged he was transferred to FCI Beaumont Medium. That same day, Nathan Foreman was also transferred to FCI Beaumont Medium and eventually became cellmates with Michael Beckcom. Beckcom would later testify at trial that Prible had confessed the murders in detail to him and Foreman.
Siegler presented Prible's case to the grand jury on August 29, 2001, without calling any witnesses. The grand jury returned an indictment. The State of Texas tried Prible for capital murder in 2002. The State's case against Prible was not strong. As summarized on direct appeal, the State's case rested on six main facts:
The State presented evidence that: 1) [Prible] was the last person seen with Steve at the house prior to the murders; 2) he had a motive to kill Steve; 3) the bullets that killed Nilda and Steve were fired from the same weapon; 4) [Prible's] sperm was deposited in Nilda's mouth at some point prior to her death; 5) a fire was set to destroy physical evidence, including evidence of [Prible's] DNA; and 6) [Prible] admitted to Beckcom that he committed the murders.
Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724, 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Most of this evidence, however, does not explicitly inculpate Prible in the murders. At issue in the instant proceedings are the two factors that the State argued directly incriminated Prible: the State's use of inmate testimony and the DNA evidence.
The star witness for the State was Michael Beckcom, a "jailhouse snitch" who was housed with Prible at FCI Beaumont Medium. Beckcom's key inculpatory testimony was that Prible confessed to him and his cellmate, Nathan Foreman, on November 24, 2001. Before trial, the trial court held a conference devoted largely to discussing the State's interaction with its anticipated witness Beckcom. Trial counsel requested that the State provide (1) information about Beckcom's criminal record and any sentence reductions he had received; (2) information about "the date, time, place, and manner of the State's contacts with [Beckcom], including a statement of how the contact was first issued and with whom it was made"; (3) information about any other cases in which he had provided testimony; (4) a copy of Beckcom's statement to prosecutors and any notes related to conversations between Beckcom and prosecutors; and (5) a copy of any agreement about what Beckcom would receive for his testimony. 2 RR 4, 6, 8.2 The trial court ordered the release of the first category of information, Beckcom's prior history of testifying, and information about any deals with the prosecution.
The prosecution balked at providing information about its contacts with Beckcom. Siegler stated:
I'll agree to tell Mr. Gaiser how we came into contact and the times that we've met. I don't remember the dates. I didn't take any notes. And the best that I can remember, I'll let him know what they are, but I'm not going to write it all down. He can come to my office and I'll sit down and tell him what I can remember.
Id. at 5-6. The trial court granted the second request "as to Siegler's oral transmission of the information to Mr. Gaiser as described on the record." Id. at 6. The prosecution provided the defense a summary of Beckcom's statement, but the trial court agreed that any notes constituted attorney work product. Id. at 7. The prosecution also agreed to tell the defense about any disciplinary violations Beckcom may have committed. Id. at 24.
The prosecution also provided some information about any deals it made with Beckcom in exchange for testifying. At the hearing, Siegler stated:
[I]n exchange for his cooperation and truthful testimony, when this trial is completely over with and resolved I will notify his Assistant United States Attorney [whose] name is Mark Cullers, in Fresno, California, that [Beckcom] cooperated in this case, what the level of his cooperation was, the extent of his cooperation, and whether or not I believe that it was truthful. At that time it will be Mark Cullers' decision as to whether or not to file a [Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] Rule 35 reduction. Even if he files that Rule 35 reduction, it will be his superior's decision whether or not to proceed with it. And even if they decide to proceed with it, it will be his Federal Judge in California's decision whether or not to give him any kind of reduction in his sentence.
Id. at 29. In that same pre-trial conference, the parties discussed the admission of any written and oral statements the prosecution intended to use. The prosecution had already given the defense all written statements. Id. at 27. Siegler told the defense that Prible "made comments and statements to other people in the Beaumont prison" but she already "gave [the defense] their names." Id. She told the defense that Beckcom was the only federal inmate the prosecution would use at trial. Id. at 28.
The State's opening statement at trial discussed extensively Beckcom's proposed testimony. The State bluntly told jurors that Beckcom is a 21 RR 79. The State then informed the jury that Beckcom hoped for, but wasnot guaranteed, a benefit from his testimony. Id. at 79-81. The State's emphasis on Beckcom foretold his importance to their case because only Beckcom would "tell you all of the details of everything that Jeff Prible told him about how he did it that night, including the fact that he was proud of the fact that he killed the whole family." Id. at 82.
Beckcom was the State's penultimate witness in its case-in-chief. After preliminary questions regarding his background, the State asked Beckcom about his extensive criminal history. At the time of trial, Beckcom had been incarcerated in federal prison for five years. 26 RR 9. Beckcom explained that he had previously testified against others in exchange...
To continue reading
Request your trial