Thompson v. Bauman

• Decision Date: 17 August 2016
• Docket Number: Case Number 12-14831
• Parties: DANNY THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. CATHERINE BAUMAN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

DANNY THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. CATHERINE BAUMAN, Respondent.

Case Number 12-14831

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

August 17, 2016

Honorable David M. Lawson

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Danny Thompson was sentenced by a Michigan court to life in prison for the first-degree premeditated murder of William Beauchamp in Genesee County, Michigan. Thompson challenges his conviction and sentence in a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus he filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his original petition, he raised nine claims based on violations of the Due Process Clause and the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments; prosecutorial misconduct for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence; the trial court's vouching for a prosecution witness; and ineffective legal representation. At Thompson's request, the Court held the petition in abeyance, and he returned to state court to exhaust two additional claims alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. He filed an amended petition on May 13, 2015, which included those claims. He also filed a motion for discovery of the affidavits submitted in support of his arrest warrant, and a motion for issuance of subpoenas. Warden Catherine Bauman filed responses to the petition and the amended petition, contending that Thompson's new claims were all raised after the statute of limitations and should be dismissed as untimely, and that all of the claims raised are meritless. She did not respond to the motions. The petitioner filed replies in support of his petitions. Because the petitioner's claims lack merit, as explained in detail below, and he is not entitled to the relief he seeks in his motions, the Court will deny the original and amended petitions and the motions.

I.

When William Beauchamp's body was found floating in the Flint River in 1996, it became apparent to authorities that he came to his death through foul play. The petitioner was last seen with Beauchamp, but the petitioner's wife provided him with an alibi. The investigation continued over the years, and it refocused on the petitioner in 2006 when Randy Snyder, who was with the petitioner on the evening of Beauchamp's death, came forward to implicate him in the murder. Snyder was serving a sentence at the time and apparently sought to barter his information for a shorter sentence.

The police investigation led to the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner, who was living in Tennessee at the time. The petitioner waived extradition, and he was returned to Michigan to stand trial for first-degree murder. Snyder was charged as well, and proceeded to trial with the petitioner, but with a separate jury. The Michigan Court of Appeals summarized the evidence adduced at the petitioner's Genesee County, Michigan circuit court trial as follows:

Defendant's conviction arises from the October 7, 1996, drowning death of William Beauchamp in Genesee County. Julie Vega, a bartender at the Viking Lounge bar, testified that defendant and codefendant Randy Snyder encountered Beauchamp, a homeless man, at the bar on the evening of October 6, 1996. According to Vega, defendant remarked that he wanted to harm Beauchamp for something he had done to defendant's grandmother. Beauchamp thereafter left the bar with defendant and Snyder, despite Vega's warning not to go with them.

Beauchamp's body was discovered in the Flint River near a fishing site the following morning. A forensic examination indicated that he had been struck in the head with a blunt object, dragged to the river, and immersed in the water while still alive. The examiner determined that the cause of Beauchamp's death was drowning. After seeing a news report of Beauchamp's death, Vega contacted the police and gave them defendant's name. She also identified defendant's photograph from aphotographic array. Lieutenant Shanlian interviewed defendant, who admitted meeting Beauchamp at the bar, but claimed that he left the bar with his wife. Defendant's wife corroborated defendant's alibi.

The investigation stalled until Lieutenant Shanlian learned in 2006 that Snyder had made statements implicating himself and defendant in Beauchamp's death. After interviewing Snyder, Shanlian obtained a warrant for defendant's arrest and drove to Tennessee where defendant was then living. After defendant was arrested, he agreed to waive extradition and return to Michigan. Shanlian interviewed defendant after his arrest. Defendant admitted leaving the bar with Snyder and Beauchamp and going to the fishing site, but stated that he was too intoxicated to fully understand what was happening. He claimed that he and Beauchamp got into a fight, during which Beauchamp jumped on him and immobilized him, and then Snyder hit Beauchamp with a tire iron to get him off defendant. According to defendant, he and Snyder then drove away, leaving Beauchamp behind. Defendant subsequently recalled that he and Beauchamp fought in the water, but did not admit to drowning him.

Before trial, defendant moved to suppress his confession on the ground that it was not voluntarily given. Defendant argued in part that his confession was induced by Shanlian's threats that his wife could be arrested for obstruction of justice and that his children could be placed in foster care. The trial court held a[n evidentiary] hearing at which Shanlian denied threatening to arrest defendant's wife or to remove defendant's children. Shanlian testified that defendant raised these issues when Shanlian asked him whether he had asked his wife to lie for him in the 1996 interview. Shanlian claimed that he repeatedly told defendant that he did not intend to arrest his wife, although he acknowledged telling defendant that the prosecutor had the authority to initiate criminal charges against her. The trial court ultimately determined that, under the totality of the circumstances, defendant's confession was not involuntary.

People v. Thompson, No. 284160, 2009 WL 2605417, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2009).

Additional forensic evidence was offered at trial in the form of expert testimony from a DNA scientist. Dr. Nibedita Mahanti of the State Police Crime Laboratory testified that DNA testing on the two cigarette butts recovered from the murder scene established that the petitioner was a major donor on one, and Randy Snyder's DNA was found on the other one. Dr. Mahanti opined that the probability of someone other than the petitioner matching the DNA was 1:45.3 quadrillion for Caucasians, and the probability of someone other than Snyder matching was 1:156.2 billion.

The jury found the petitioner guilty of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced as a fourth habitual felony offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the first-degree murder conviction, and the state supreme court denied leave to appeal on December 25, 2009. People v. Thompson, 2009 WL 2605417 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2009), lv. to appeal den., 485 Mich. 1081, 777 N.W.2d 195 (2010). The petitioner returned to the trial court and filed a motion for relief from judgment, which was denied on the merits, People v. Thompson, No. 07-204643-FC, Order (Genesee County Cir. Ct. Nov. 18, 2010), and the state appellate courts denied leave to appeal, People v. Thompson, No. 304656, Order (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2011), lv. to appeal den. 492 Mich. 853, 817 N.W.2d 89 (2012).

On October 30, 2012, the petitioner filed his original petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court, in which he seeks relief on the following nine claims that he raised before the Michigan Supreme Court:

I. The trial court violated due process by admitting the petitioner's coerced confession obtained by threats to prosecute his wife and remove their children from her custody.

II. The trial court violated due process by refusing to suppress a key prosecution witness's identification testimony that resulted from an unfairly suggestive photo line-up in which the petitioner was the only bald-headed subject.

III. The trial court violated due process by failing to give the proper oath before jury selection. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object at the time.

IV. The prosecutor engaged in misconduct by an improper closing argument. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object.

V. The trial court improperly vouched for witness Lieutenant Shanlian by calling him "our friend" before the jury.

VI. The petitioner's rights were violated by his removal from Tennessee without compliance with extradition law.

VII. The prosecutor improperly withheld DNA data, a Brady violation.

VIII. Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel by the cumulative effect of multiple errors.

IX. Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise three issues on appeal.

On January 30, 2014, the petitioner filed a motion to hold the habeas petition in abeyance so that he could return to state court to present a new claim in a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment. The petitioner filed his successive motion for relief from judgment on May 20, 2014. The trial court denied the petitioner's motion, and the state appellate courts again denied leave to appeal. People v. Thompson, No. 322496, Order (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2014), lv. to appeal den. 497 Mich. 1011, 862 N.W.2d 181 (2015). The petitioner filed an amended petition on May 13, 2015 raising the following additional claims:

X. The petitioner was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel by his counsel's failure to challenge his arrest warrant as invalid because of misleading statements and omissions by the police, neglecting to raise a meritorious Fourth Amendment claim.

XI. The petitioner was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel by his counsel's failure to investigate and raise ineffectiveness of trial counsel in his direct appeal for failing to

...