Saunders v. Ames, Civil Action 2:21-cv-00102
| Decision Date | 09 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:21-cv-00102 |
| Parties | QUANTEL SAUNDERS, Petitioner, v. DONALD AMES, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
On February 10, 2021, the Petitioner filed & Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. §2241 (Document 1), wherein he asserted that he was being held in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States as a pretrial detainee pursuant to an indictment filed against him in Fayette County Circuit Court. By Standing Order (Document 4), this action was referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. In a first Proposed Findings and Recommendation (PF&R) (Document 5) submitted on February 18, 2021, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny the Petitioner's petition, adopt the first PF&R, and remove the matter from the Court's Docket. Upon consideration of the Petitioner's Objections to Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Document 15) filed on March 31, 2021, this Court found that the objections should be sustained, the first PF&R should be rejected and the matter should be remanded for further proceedings.
In particular, the Court sought additional information to determine whether the alleged double jeopardy violation was clear, immediate, and irreparable, and whether the Petitioner had exhausted all remedies available to him at the state level. Following remand, the Petitioner filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Document 19) to enjoin the Respondent and any agents from scheduling hearings and/or trial dates on the underlying criminal charges pending resolution of this matter. On June 9, 2021, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and Response to Motion for Injunctive Relief (Document 26) was filed. After a reply by the Petitioner (Document 31), and rebuttal by the Respondent (Document 32), the Magistrate Judge submitted a renewed Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Document 33) recommending that the Court deny the Respondent's motion to dismiss, grant the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and direct the prosecution of the petitioner on the underlying charges to cease due to the double jeopardy rights afforded to the Petitioner.
The Respondents timely filed the Respondent's Objections to Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Document 34). For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the objections should be overruled, and the PF&R should be adopted.
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's PF&R sets forth in detail the procedural and factual history surrounding the Petitioner's petition and the resulting proceedings. The Court now incorporates by reference those facts and procedural history and provides the following summary for context. The Petitioner is a pretrial detainee challenging his detention pursuant to a county detainer against him in Fayette County, West Virginia.[1] He is facing a second trial on charges for one count of conspiracy to commit a felony, one count of murder, and one count of robbery in the first degree, after a mistrial was declared in the first trial. Initially, the Petitioner asserted three grounds for relief, but for reasons discussed in the PF&R and below, only one is relevant to this opinion. In particular, the Petitioner asserted that his "mistrial bars retrial due to double jeopardy" because a "manifest necessity" was not properly found by the Circuit Court. (Document 1 at 13-15).
The Petitioner asserts that his detention, at least partially due to the pending retrial, violates the Constitution or the laws of the United States. After the Petitioner's jury trial had commenced in September 2019, he discovered the existence of exculpatory evidence. When confronted, the State acknowledged the existence of the exculpatory evidence and disclosed it to the Petitioner at that point. After the Petitioner reviewed some of the files over the weekend, he requested that the court dismiss the action, arguing that the state had violated Brady v. Maryland through its late disclosure of exculpatory evidence. The trial court denied the motion, and instead allowed a continuance for the Petitioner's counsel to investigate the exculpatory evidence. After initial review by counsel revealed the need for further investigation, the Petitioner moved again for dismissal, or, at minimum, a further continuance. The State objected to the continuance, and requested a mistrial instead, which the trial court granted.
After the mistrial, the Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the indictment arguing that further proceedings would violate his Fifth Amendment rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The trial court denied the motion. The Petitioner then petitioned the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ("WVSCA") for a writ of prohibition to prevent a second trial. In a three-sentence order containing no analysis, the WVSCA denied the petition. (Document 26-20.) Both the Petitioner and Respondent attest that this exhausted available state remedies. (Document 31 at 9-10; Document 27 at 17.) The Petitioner now requests that this Court grant his motion, and order the cessation of the "criminal action in accordance with constitutional protections of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and Article 3, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution which protect individuals from and against double jeopardy." (Document 1 at 8.)
This Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, this Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party "makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn properly classified the Petitioner's claim as one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 despite previous questions regarding which statutory vehicle was appropriate. (PF&R at 17.) Pursuant to the Memorandum Opinion and Order (Document 16), Judge Aboulhosn examined the Petitioner's double jeopardy claim. Finding that a state's irreparable violation of a petitioner's Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy rights is an "extraordinary circumstance" that warrants federal court intervention, he determined that application of Younger abstention would hinge on whether a second criminal trial would constitute a violation of the Petitioner's double jeopardy rights. (PF&R at 17-19.)
Upon consideration, Judge Aboulhosn concluded that "manifest necessity" did not exist to justify the trial judge granting a mistrial, and therefore, jeopardy attached and retrial on the same charges would violate the Petitioner's double jeopardy rights. (PF&R at 22, 27-28.) Judge Aboulhosn found that because the issue giving rise to the declared mistrial was spurred by an alleged Brady violation-prosecutor error-a higher level of scrutiny should be applied to the finding of "manifest necessity." Further, he found that the evidence disclosed after the trial had commenced was indeed exculpatory, and as such, any needed delay in the trial was caused by the State's failure to timely provide required disclosures to the defendant. In granting the mistrial, Judge Aboulhosn found that the trial court did not exercise "sound discretion" and did not adequately consider either less drastic alternatives to a mistrial, or the prejudice to the Petitioner. He also found that when presented with an additional motion to dismiss following the granting of the mistrial, the trial court again failed to exercise "sound discretion" in considering the compelling double jeopardy concerns of the Petitioner. Accordingly, Judge Aboulhosn found that the Petitioner's double jeopardy rights will be violated by a second trial, and due to this violation, federal intervention is appropriate.
The Respondent objects broadly to the recommendation that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and Response to Motion for Injunctive Relief (Document 26) be denied and that criminal charges against the Petitioner cease. Specifically, Respondent objects to Judge Aboulhosn's determination that the trial judge did not exercise "sound discretion" in declaring a mistrial.
Further, he objects to the finding that the record did not demonstrate the "manifest necessity" required to justify a mistrial nor that "the ends of justice would have been defeated without granting of a mistrial." (Document 34 at 1-2). The Respondent argues that the Magistrate Judge gave inadequate deference to the judicial determination of "manifest necessity" for granting the mistrial. Id. He asserts that in following appropriate procedure and giving proper consideration, the trial judge exercised "sound discretion." Additionally, the Respondent urges the Court to consider a Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008), asserting that it is analogous and instructive in the present case. Thus, he argues, the trial court should be accorded special deference and the PF&R should be rejected.
Despite some confusion throughout the case, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper statutory vehicle for the Petitioner's petition. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial