Wharton v. Vaughn

• Decision Date: 16 August 2012
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION No. 01-6049
• Parties: ROBERT WHARTON, Petitioner, v. DONALD T. VAUGHN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

ROBERT WHARTON, Petitioner,

v.DONALD T. VAUGHN, Respondent.

CIVIL ACTION No. 01-6049

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date: August 16, 2012

Goldberg, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 2, 1985, Petitioner, Robert Wharton, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder for the brutal killing of Bradley and Ferne Hart. Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to death and his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Petitioner has filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from his convictions and death sentence. He brings twenty-three claims for relief, challenging the constitutionality of his trial and sentencing hearings. For the reasons set forth below, and after careful consideration of his petition, we conclude that Petitioner's claims are untimely, procedurally defaulted and/or without merit.

Table of Contents

I. Factual & Procedural History .................................................................................................4

II. Legal Standards ......................................................................................................................................................8

A. Timeliness of a Federal Habeas Petition ................................................................................................8

B. Exhaustion of State Remedies; Procedural Default ...............................................................................9

C. Standard for Issuance of the Writ ...........................................................................................................10

III. Analysis of Procedural Issues & Standard of Review ........................................................11

A. Timeliness of Claims Raised .................................................................................................................12

B. Exhaustion, Procedural Default & AEDPA Deference .......................................................................16

IV. Development of the Factual Record in Federal Court ........................................................24

A. Standards Governing Requests for an Evidentiary Hearing & Discovery ......................25

B. Petitioner's Requests for an Evidentiary Hearing & Discovery ........................................27

IV. Analysis of the Merits .............................................................................................................33

A. Claim I - Did the Prosecution use Peremptory Strikes in a Racially Discriminatory Manner? ............................................................................................................................33

B. Claim II - Was Petitioner's Trial Counsel Ineffective for Failing to Discover and Utilize Available Evidence to Demonstrate his Confession was Involuntary? ...................................................................................................................................................34

C. Claim III - Was Petitioner's Confession Admitted Against him in Violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? ........................................................................................71

D. Claim XVIII - Was Trial Counsel Ineffective for Failing to Impeach the Testimony of Robert Hart? ............................................................................................................................81

E. Claim VI - Did the Admission of the Confession of Petitioner's Co-defendant Violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause? .............................................................................82F. Claim XIV - Did The Trial Court's Reasonable Doubt Instruction Violate Due Process? .......................................................................................................................................................97

G. Claim XV - Did the Prosecution Suppress Exculpatory Evidence at Petitioner's First Penalty Hearing and his Trial in Violation of Due Process? ........................................................................................................................................................98

H. Claim VII - Did Petitioner's Second Penalty Hearing Violate the Double Jeopardy Clause? ......................................................................................................................................102

I. Claim IV - Was Petitioner's Counsel Ineffective at his Second Penalty Hearing for Failing to Offer Available Mitigation Evidence? ..............................................................................104

J. Claim XII - Did Admission of "Victim Impact" Evidence and Other "Prejudicial" Evidence During Petitioner's Guilt Phase and Second Penalty Hearing Violate Due Process? ...................................................................................................................112

K. Claim XVI - Did the Court's Refusal to Allow Testimony Regarding Petitioner's Religious Beliefs and his Co-defendant's Life Sentence During the Second Penalty Hearing Violate Due Process? .......................................................................................126

L. Claim VIII - Did the Prosecutor's Conduct During Petitioner's Second Penalty Hearing Violate Due Process? ..................................................................................................................130

M. Claim X - Did The Court's Refusal to Allow Petitioner's Counsel to Argue that the Jury's Verdict would be "Basically Irreversible" During the Second Death Penalty Hearing Violate Due Process? ....................................................................................................136

N. Claim XI - Did the Court Violate Petitioner's Due Process Rights During the Second Penalty Hearing by Failing to Instruct the Jury that, if Sentenced to Life, Petitioner would Never be Eligible for Parole? .............................................................................137

O. Claim XIII - Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Review of Petitioner's Death Sentence Violate Due Process? .....................................................................................................144

P. Claim V - Does Petitioner's Death Sentence Violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or Due Process? .........................................................................................................................................148

Q. Cumulative Effect of All Errors .................................................................................................................155

VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................156

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The facts supporting Petitioner's convictions for first degree murder were described by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as follows:

The murders of Bradley Hart and his wife Fern[e] were the culmination of a series of crimes committed by Petitioner and his cohorts against the Hart family in retribution for a dispute over the quality of home improvement work Petitioner performed in the summer of 1983 at the Harts' residence and at a radio station owned by Hart's father, the Reverend Samuel Hart. When Hart refused to pay Petitioner's employer for the work, Petitioner complained bitterly and blamed Bradley Hart for his lost wages. He vowed to make the Hart family pay.

Petitioner began victimizing the Harts by burglarizing their home with Larue Owens on Sunday, August 14, 1983, at a time when Petitioner and Owens knew the Harts would be at church. Petitioner returned the following week with Owens and Eric Mason, and stole additional property. This time they also vandalized the Harts' home by slashing furniture; ransacking closets; mutilating family photographs; pouring different liquids such as bleach, paint, and oil throughout the house; and, defecating and urinating on the floors. On September 4, 1983, Petitioner burglarized Reverend Hart's church, stole cash and computer equipment, and pinned a photograph of Bradley Hart to a wall with a letter opener. Then, in early January of 1984, Petitioner, Mason and Thomas Nixon went to the Harts' home intending to rob them. The men abandoned their plan when they discovered the Harts had another person visiting in the house.

Finally, in the late evening of January 30, 1984, while Bradley and Fern[e] Hart were home alone with their seven-month-old daughter, Petitioner and Mason came to the Harts' home. When Bradley Hart answered the door, Petitioner and Mason forced their way in at knifepoint. Initially, they coerced Bradley Hart into writing Petitioner a check for nine hundred and thirty four dollars as settlement for the debt Petitioner felt was owed to him. Next, the two men tied up the Harts on a couch holding them captive, while the intruders watched television and talked for several hours. Eventually, they decided to separate the couple. Petitioner took Fern[e] Hart upstairs where he bound her hands and legs; covered her eyes, nose, and mouth with duct tape; strangled her with a necktie; and ultimately drowned her in a bathtub. Meanwhile, Mason took Bradley Hart to the basement where Mason forced Bradley Hart to lie with his face in a pan of water; placed his foot on Bradley Hart's back; and strangled him to death with an electrical cord. Petitioner and Mason fled, but not before they turned off the heat in the house and abandoned the Harts' infant child on a bed in an upstairs bedroom.

On February 2, 1984, concerned that he had not heard from his son or daughter-in-law, Reverend Hart went to the home and discovered their bodies. When he found the infant, she was suffering from dehydration and neglect. She wasimmediately transported to a hospital where she experienced respiratory arrest brought on by shock and hypothermia. She eventually recovered.

An investigation

...