Pursell v. Horn

Decision Date01 February 2002
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 99-174 E.
Citation187 F.Supp.2d 260
PartiesAlan PURSELL, Petitioner, v. Martin HORN, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Philip L. Johnson, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, and Joseph P. Mazurkiewicz, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, Respondents.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

Matthew Lawry, James Anderson, Staurt Lev, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Capital Habeas Unit, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.

Kenneth A. Zak, Office of the District Attorney, Erie, PA, for respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

D. BROOKS SMITH, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...........................................284
                 II. EXHAUSTION .............................................................288
                III. PROCEDURAL DEFAULT .....................................................290
                     A. The Procedural Bars in Question .....................................292
                     B. When The Alleged Default Occurred ...................................292
                     C. Was the Waiver Rule Firmly Established Between 1982 and 1994? .......293
                     D. Was the One Year Limitations Period Firmly Established in 1986? .....295
                     E. Conclusion to Procedural Default ....................................296
                 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................297
                  V. PURSELL'S GUILT-PHASE CLAIMS ...........................................299
                     A. Trial Court's Refusal to Order Change of Venue ......................299
                        (1) Factual Background ..............................................299
                        (2) Legal Analysis ..................................................300
                            (a) Refusal to Presume Prejudice ................................302
                
                            (b) Refusal to Find Actual Prejudice ..............................303
                        (3) Ineffective Assistance Claim ......................................305
                        (4) Conclusion ........................................................306
                     B. Trial Court's Denial of Challenges For Cause ..........................306
                        (1) Ineffective Assistance Claim ......................................306
                            (a) Legal Background ..............................................307
                            (b) Challenges to Shank, Noble, Fink, and Gunther .................308
                            (c) Challenges to Ott and Yaple ...................................310
                            (d) Was Counsel Deficient In Failing to Raise Claims Concerning
                                 Ott and Yaple? ...............................................318
                        (2) Sixth Amendment Right to Impartial Jury ...........................321
                        (3) Due Process Claim .................................................322
                        (4) Trial Court's Grant of Commonwealth's Challenge for Cause .........322
                        (5) Conclusion ........................................................322
                     C. Prosecution's Failure to Disclose Evidence of Other Suspect ...........323
                        (1) Factual Background ................................................323
                        (2) Request for Evidentiary Hearing ...................................325
                        (3) Brady Claim .......................................................326
                        (4) Ineffective Assistance Claim ......................................329
                        (5) Conclusion ........................................................329
                     D. Prosecutorial Misconduct ..............................................329
                        (1) Claims Relating To Testimony of Officer Mark Krahe ................330
                            (a) Pursell's Invocation of Right to Counsel ......................331
                            (b) Testimony About Pursell's Prior Criminal Record and Counsel's
                                Withdrawal of Motion for Mistrial .............................335
                            (c) Krahe's Testimony About Conley's Accusation of Rape ...........340
                            (d) Krahe's Testimony That Pursell Was "Nervous" ..................342
                        (2) The Testimony of the Erie County District Attorney ................342
                        (3) The Use of Prior Consistent Statements ............................343
                            (a) Factual Background ............................................343
                            (b) Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim ................................344
                
                          (c) Ineffective Assistance Claim ....................................346
                          (d) Conclusion ......................................................346
                      (4) Prosecutor's Remarks About Pursell's Appearance .....................347
                          (a) Factual Background ..............................................347
                          (b) Admission of Evidence in Case in Chief ..........................348
                          (c) Prosecutor's Closing Remarks ....................................348
                          (d) Conclusion ......................................................350
                      (5) Prosecutor's Reference to Personal Knowledge ........................350
                      (6) Prosecutor's Reference to Time of Death .............................351
                      (7) Cumulative Effect of Errors .........................................352
                          (a) What Errors Should Be Considered? ...............................352
                          (b) Legal Analysis of Cumulative Claim ..............................353
                          (c) Conclusion ......................................................354
                   E. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel .......................................354
                      (1) Counsel's Failure to Request a Jury Instruction on Good Character ...354
                      (2) Counsel's Failure to Rehabilitate Dorothy Pursell ...................355
                      (3) Counsel's Failure to Object to Impeachment by Omission ..............357
                      (4) Counsel's Failure to Challenge Contention That Nearest Rock Was
                           Two Hundred Feet From Victim .......................................358
                      (5) Counsel's Failure to Impeach Diane Walters ..........................359
                      (6) Counsel's Failure to Rebut Claim of Premeditation ...................362
                      (7) Claim Based on Counsel's Cumulative Errors ..........................363
                   F. Challenge to Jury Instructions ..........................................363
                      (1) Jury Instruction on Malice ..........................................364
                      (2) Mandatory Presumption of Malice and Intent to Kill ..................366
                      (3) Ineffective Assistance Claim ........................................368
                      (4) Conclusion ..........................................................368
                   G. Pursell Represented Himself On His PCRA Appeal ..........................368
                      (1) Background ..........................................................369
                      (2) Claim is Barred By Teague ...........................................370
                
                        (3) Merits of the Claim .................................................372
                        (4) Conclusion ..........................................................373
                     H. Challenge to Conduct of All Prior Counsel ...............................373
                     I. Claim for Cumulative Trial Error ........................................373
                        (1) Analyzing Claims for Cumulative Error ...............................374
                        (2) The Errors ..........................................................376
                        (3) Merits of the Claim .................................................376
                        (4) Conclusion ..........................................................377
                     J. Conclusion to Guilt-Phase Analysis ......................................377
                 VI. PURSELL'S SENTENCING-PHASE CLAIMS ..........................................378
                     A. Counsel's Failure to Investigate and Introduce Mitigating Evidence ......378
                        (1) Factual Background ..................................................378
                            (a) Pursell's Early Years ...........................................378
                            (b) Physical and Sexual Abuse .......................................379
                            (c) Drug and Alcohol Abuse ..........................................379
                            (d) Psychological Impairments .......................................380
                            (e) Kind, Loving, and Peaceful Person ...............................381
                        (2) Expansion of the Record .............................................381
                        (3) Legal Analysis ......................................................382
                            (a) Counsel Was Deficient ...........................................382
                            (b) Counsel's Conduct Prejudiced Pursell ............................385
                        (4) Conclusion ..........................................................387
                     B. The Trial Court's Instruction on the Meaning of Torture .................387
                        (1) Factual Background ..................................................387
                        (2) Clearly Established Federal Law .....................................388
                        (3) Unconstitutionality of the Instruction ..............................390
                            (a) Especially Heinous, Atrocious, or Cruel Manifesting Exceptional
                                 Depravity ......................................................390
                            (b) Intention to Inflict Pain or Suffering ..........................393
                            (c) Meaning of Torture Was a Moving Target ..........................394
                
                         (4) Is Relief Required Under AEDPA?
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Porter v. Horn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • June 26, 2003
    ...usual case that the prisoner, at a minimum, seek an evidentiary hearing in state court in the manner prescribed by state law." Pursell, 187 F.Supp.2d at 325 (quotation and internal quotation marks If the federal habeas court determines that petitioner failed to develop the state court recor......
  • Baker v. Horn, CVILL ACTION 96-CV-0037 (E.D. Pa. 5/__/2002)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • May 1, 2002
    ...did the court state that its constitutional analysis was limited to the Pennsylvania Constitution. As the court in Pursell v. Horn, 187 F. Supp.2d 260 (W.D.Pa. 2002), recently noted, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has indicated that it "implicitly resolves all constitutional issues [includi......
  • Baker v. Horn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • May 31, 2002
    ...did the court state that its constitutional analysis was limited to the Pennsylvania Constitution. As the court in Pursell v. Horn, 187 F.Supp.2d 260 (W.D.Pa.2002), recently noted, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has indicated that it "implicitly resolves all constitutional issues [including......
  • Saranchak v. Beard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • January 4, 2008
    ...the claim, it is exhausted, even if the state court refuses to hear the claim because it is time-barred or waived. Pursell v. Horn, 187 F.Supp.2d 260, 288-89 (W.D.Pa.2002) (citing Bond v. Fulcomer, 864 F.2d 306, 309 (3d Cir.1989) (holding that presentation of an untimely petition to the sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Trial
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Criminal Practice
    • April 30, 2022
    ...a written motion for change of venue. FRCrP 21(a). Prejudice may be presumed in certain extreme cases. See, e.g. , Pursell v. Horn , 187 F. Supp. 2d 260, 303 (W.D. Pa. 2002) (noting that prejudice may be presumed in some “exceedingly rare” cases where the trial atmosphere is “utterly corrup......
  • Appeals
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Criminal Defense Tools and Techniques
    • March 30, 2017
    ...N.H. & H.R.R. , 62 F.2d 500, 502 (2d Cir. 1933) Government of Virgin Islands v. Pinney , 967 F.2d 912 (3rd Cir. 1992) Pursell v. Horn , 187 F.Supp.2d 260, 356 (W.D. Pa. 2002) (Smith, J.) Tome v. United States , 513 U.S. 150 (1995) United States v. Bao , 189 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 1999) United S......

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