Reasonover v. Washington, 4:96CV1477 JCH.

• Decision Date: 02 August 1999
• Docket Number: No. 4:96CV1477 JCH.,4:96CV1477 JCH.
• Citation: 60 F.Supp.2d 937
• Parties: Ellen REASONOVER, Petitioner, v. James WASHINGTON, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

60 F.Supp.2d 937

Ellen REASONOVER, Petitioner, v. James WASHINGTON, Respondent.

No. 4:96CV1477 JCH.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

August 2, 1999.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Wyrsch and Atwell, Cheryl Pilate, Charles Rogers, James Wyrsch, Kansas City, MO, Sindel and Sindel, Richard H. Sindel, Clayton, MO, for petitioner.

Attorney General of Missouri, Stephen Hawke, Asst. Atty. General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HAMILTON, Chief Judge.

This matter arises on Petitioner's First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on June 11, 1996. (Docket # 13). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on June 28, 1999 through July 1, 1999. Because Petitioner's constitutional claims are procedurally barred, and because Petitioner cannot establish cause to excuse her procedural default, the Court must determine whether Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence of actual innocence in accordance with Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). If the Court determines that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing of actual innocence, it will rule on the merits of Petitioner's constitutional claims. See Docket # 80.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                PROCEDURAL HISTORY                                                           941
                TRIAL EVIDENCE                                                               942
                       A. Rose Jolliff's Trial Testimony                                     943
                       B. Mary Ellen Lyner's Trial Testimony                                 944
                GROUNDS FOR RELIEF                                                           945
                PROCEDURAL DEFAULT                                                           945
                DISCUSSION                                                                   946
                  I. Schlup v. Delo: The Actual Innocence Gateway                            946
                 II. Defining "New Evidence" under Schlup v. Delo                            947
                III. Application of Schlup v. Delo to the Evidence Presented by Petitioner   950
                     A. Evidence Unavailable at the Time of Trial                            950
                        1. The Reasonover-White Tape                                         950
                           a. What Petitioner Saw and Did on the Night of the Murder         951
                           b. What Stanley White Did on the Night of the Murder              951
                           c. Petitioner and White's Attempts to Help the Police             952
                           d. Petitioner and White's Shock and Disgust about the Murder of
                              the "Young Boy"                                                953
                

                           e. Petitioner and White's Attempts to Figure Out Why They've
                              Been Arrested                                                             953
                        2. Evidence Impeaching the Credibility of Rose Jolliff's Trial Testimony        954
                           a. The Jolliff-Reasonover Tape                                               955
                           b. The Understanding Between Jolliff and the State Which Resulted
                              in the Unusually Favorable Disposition of Jolliff's Pending Cases         957
                              i. The Disposition of Jolliff's Pending Cases was Unusually
                                 Favorable                                                              958
                             ii. The Understanding Between Jolliff and the State                        959
                           c. Jolliff's Invocation of the Fifth Amendment                               959
                        3. Evidence Impeaching the Credibility of Mary Ellen Lyner's Trial
                           Testimony                                                                    961
                        4. Summary of the Court's Findings and Conclusions Based on Evidence
                           Unavailable at the Time of Trial                                             963
                     B. Evidence Not Presented at Trial                                                 964
                        1. Marquita (Butler) Hinton's Testimony                                         964
                        2. Testimony of Petitioner and Lyner's Cellmates                                966
                        3. Petitioner's Testimony                                                       967
                        4. The Suppression Hearing Testimony of Officer Marsha Vogt                     969
                        5. Stanley White's Alibi                                                        969
                        6. Witnesses Testifying to Jolliff and Lyner's Character for Untruthfulness     971
                        7. Petitioner's Polygraph Examination                                           971
                 IV. The Merits of Petitioner's Constitutional Claims                                   972
                     A. The State's Failure to Disclose Evidence Favorable to Petitioner                973
                        1. Failure to Disclose the Reasonover-White Tape                                973
                        2. Failure to Disclose the Jolliff-Reasonover Tape                              973
                        3. Failure to Disclose the Existence of the Understanding Between
                           Jolliff and the State                                                        973
                        4. Failure to Disclose Lyner's Prior Deal with the Prosecutors                  975
                     B. The Prejudice Resulting from the State's Failure to Disclose Brady
                        Material                                                                        975
                        1. Prejudice Resulting from Failure to Disclose the Reasonover-White
                           Tape                                                                         976
                        2. Prejudice Resulting from Failure to Disclose the Jolliff-Reasonover
                           Tape                                                                         977
                        3. Prejudice Resulting from Failure to Disclose the Existence of the
                           Understanding Between Jolliff and the State                                  979
                        4. Prejudice Resulting from Failure to Disclose Lyner's Prior Deal with
                           Prosecutors                                                                  979
                        5. The Net Effect of the Failure to Disclose Evidence Favorable to
                           Petitioner                                                                   980
                APPENDIX*
                  Exhibit A:  Jolliff-Reasonover Tape: Transcript Created by the Court                  981
                  Exhibit B   Jolliff-Reasonover Tape: Transcript Submitted to the Court as Ex. A
                              to Petitioner's Post-Hearing Brief                                        984
                

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 2, 1983, Petitioner was convicted of capital murder, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 565.001 (repealed effective October 1, 1984) by a jury in the Circuit Court for St. Louis County in State of Missouri v. Ellen Maria Reasonover, Cause No. 488120. (Pet.App.46, 66).¹ After the jury was unable to agree on the appropriate punishment, the trial judge sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for fifty years. (Id., at 46, 65). The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence on June 17, 1986. State v. Reasonover, 714 S.W.2d 706 (Mo.App.1986). On December 27, 1988. Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Pet.App.604). On November 20, 1989, the Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh denied Petitioner's habeas corpus petition, adopting United States Magistrate Judge Robert D. Kingsland's Review and Recommendation. (Pet. App.830).

TRIAL EVIDENCE

The Missouri Court of Appeals summarized the evidence at trial as follows:

On January 2, 1983, at approximately 2:00 a.m., the body of James Buckley, a gas station attendant, was discovered in the storage room of a Vickers station on West Florissant Avenue, Dellwood, Missouri. He had been shot to death. The crime was publicized, and persons who had information about the crime were asked by the police to come forward. On January 3rd a woman who identified herself as Sheila Hill called the Dellwood police department, claiming she had been at the Vickers station and had seen three persons. Officer Pike, with whom she spoke, asked her to call again to speak with Captain Chapman. She called again on January 4th, and came down to the police station at 11:30 that evening. When asked for identification, Sheila Hill identified herself as Ellen Reasonover, the defendant herein.

Defendant said she had been doing laundry and went to the Vickers station to get change. She was not sure of the time, but thought she was at the station at about 1:30 a.m. the night of the murder. Defendant, who was considered a witness at this time, was taken to the Vickers station to reenact what she had seen. She stated that as she drove up, she saw a cream-colored station wagon leave the station. She also saw a black man in the cashier's cage, whom she assumed was an attendant. As she approached the cashier's cage, the black man took off his cap and left the cage to enter the main part of the station. Defendant knocked loudly on the window of the cage, but the black man did not return. She also saw a car parked on the right side of the building, which she described as a dark blue or black Oldsmobile or Buick with silver or gray trim and a spare tire container protruding from the top of the trunk. She described a second black man that she saw at the station, who was taller than the first and wore a green Army jacket. A third person was in the back of the car. As defendant was pulling out of the station she saw the man from the cashier's cage enter the car. She then proceeded to a nearby 7-Eleven store, where she again saw the two men as she was coming out of the store. Defendant then returned to the laundromat.

In the early morning hours of January 5th, defendant picked out two photographs from 250 photographs shown to her by the police. The photographs were of Isaac Scott and Herman Staples. In subsequent lineups, she failed to pick out Isaac Scott but did identify Herman Staples as one of the two men she had seen. Upon investigation, the police discovered...