Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58
Filed 02/28/12 Page 1 of 64 Pageid#: 2454
rdpv sAOTFR
FO
I
CAENU6K
:iDl
n
I
VS
Am'.
.'I
'%
,
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FO R TH E W ESTER N DISTR ICT O F VIR G INIA
FE2 23 2212
JULI
A C.
BK
R oanoke Division
LG P;VN*
j:
)j
M IC H AEL W A Y NE H A SH ,
C ivilCase N o.7:10-cv-00161
Petitioner,
M EM O M ND U M O PIN IO N
V.
G EN E M .JO H N SO N ,
D IRECT O R O F V IR G INIA
D EPAR TM EN T O F C O R R ECTIO N S,
By: Jam esC .Turk
Senior United States DistrictJudge
Respondent.
ThismattercomesbeforetheCourtonPetitionerMichaelW ayneHash's(tsl-lash''or
'lpetitioner'')petition forawritofhabeascorpuspursuantto28U.S.C.j2254.Respondenthas
moved to dism iss.Hash allegesthathehasbeen im prisonedinviolation ofhisrightto due
processbecause the Prosecution and the Culpeper authoritiesconcealed theirarrangem entw ith
prosecutionwitnessPaulCarter(EiCarter''),andmoregenerally,engagedinapattern ofnondisclosureand deception during theprosecution ofHash'scase.Hash furtherallegesthathis
trialcounselrendered constitutionally ineffective assistance ofcounselby failing to investigate
Carterand failing to presentan altem ate theory ofthe crim e attrial. Forthe reasonsstated
herein,Hash'srequestforhabeasreliefwith respecttoeach ofhisclaim sisGR ANTED.
1.
Background and ProceduralH istory1
Thehistory ofthiscase is extensive. Because the analysistunason specific statem ents
m ade during trialand testim ony from the state and federalhabeasproceedings,the Courtbegins
lA lthoughthisCourtultim ately concludesthattheV irginiaSupremeCourt'slegalconclusionswereincorrect, the
V irginiaSupremeCourtcarefullyreviewedtherecordand thisCourthasborrow ed heavily from itscogentfact
section.SeeHashv.Dir.oftheDep'tofCorrs.,686S.E.2d20s,209-12(Va.2009).
1
v*
k
'
a
?
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58
Filed 02/28/12 Page 2 of 64 Pageid#: 2455
with ahigherleveloverview ofthecase.M orespecificdetailsand verbatim statem entsare
reserved forpresentation in the appropriate analysis sections. See infra SectionsllIand lV .
A. ProeeduralH istory
OnFebruary9,2001,ajuryconvictedHashofcapitalmurderofThelmaB.Scroggins
(ûtscroggins').Petitionerwassentencedtolifeimprisonmentwithoutthepossibilityofparole.
AtthetimeofScroggins'murderin July 1996,Hashwasfifteen yearsold.Hash wasnot
charged with themurderuntil2000,when hewasnineteen yearsold. Priorto Hash'strial,
Hash'sco-defendant,JasonKloby($% loby''),wastriedandacquittedofScroggins'murder.
HashappealedhisconvictionintheCircuitCourtofCulpeperCounty(ilculpeperCircuit
Coulf'ltotheCourtofAppealsofVirginia,whichaffirmedthetrialcourt'sjudgmentinan
unpublishedopinion.Hashv.Commonwealth,No.1290-01-4,2002W L 2004853(Va.Ct.App.
Sept.3,2002).TheSupremeCourtofVirginiadeniedHash'spetitionforappealandpetitionfor
rehearing.
Thereafter,Hash filed a petition forhabeas corpusin the CulpeperCircuitCourt. In that
petition healleged,interalia,thattheProsecution and theCulpeperauthoritieshad violated his
rightsby(1)failingto discloserecordsofcorrespondenceordiscussionswithCarterabout
Carter'sexpectationofasentencereductioninexchangeforhistestimonyagainstHash;(2)
failingtodiscloserecordsofCarter'shistory asaninfonuant;(3)usingCarter'stestimonywhen
theCommonwealth knew orshouldhaveknownthatsuchtestimonywasperjured;(4)
suggestingtothejurythatCartercouldnotreducehisfederalsentenceby assistingprosecutors
inastatecourtcase;and(5)failingtodisclosedealswithW eakleyregardinghistestimonyin
Hash's case and hisexpectation ofleniency. Hash also alleged thathis trialcounselwere
constitutionallydeficientfor(1)failingtoinvestigateevidenceofothersuspectsinthecase,(2)
2
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58
Filed 02/28/12 Page 3 of 64 Pageid#: 2456
failingtodiscoverletterswrittenbyCartertoafederaldistrictcourtjudgeandothersseeking
assistanceinobtainingasentencereductioninhisfederalcase,and(3)failingtopresent
evidence thatH ash w asm oved from Culpeperto the Albem arle-charlottesville R egionalJailin
orderto expose H ash to Carter.
ln itsunpublished letteropinion,the CulpeperCircuitCourtdenied a11ofHash'sclaim s.
First,the CulpeperCircuitCourtheld thatalthough trialcounsel'sperfonnance w as deficient
withregardtocounsel'sfailuretoinvestigateCarter,Hashhadfailedtoproveprejudiceunder
Stricklandv.W ashington,466U.S.668(1984).(StateHabeasCir.Ct.Op.at14,16).Second,
theCulpeperCircuitCourtfoundthatPetitionerhadnotprovenprejudicewithregardtohistrial
cotm sel's failure to presentevidence thatHash w asrelocated from Culpeperto the A lbem arle-
Charlottesville RegionalJailforthepurposeofbeingexposed toknown prison inform ant,Carter.
(ld.at16).Third,withregardtoHash'strialcounsel'sfailuretopresentanalternatetheoryof
the crim e,the Culpeper CircuitCourtheld thatthe investigation conducted by Hash'strial
counselwasreasonableandtheirresultingtrialstrategywasreasonable.(ld.at18-19).Finally,
theCulpeperCircuitCourtheldthattherewasinsufficientproofofmisconductwith regardtothe
Commonwealth'sdealingswithCarter.(J-i at18).2
HashappealedtheCulpeperCircuitCourt'sjudgmenttotheSupremeCourtofVirginia.
The Suprem e CourtofV irginia's review w aslim ited to the follow ing assignm ents oferror:3
The circuitcourterred in denying habeasreliefon Claim A
regarding S'snitch''testim ony from PaulCarterand ruling that,
although counsel'sperform ance w asconstitutionally deficient,
therewasno reasonableprobability ofa differentresult.
2TheCulpeperCircuitCourt'sdecision alsoincluded rulingson issuesnotraised inthefederalhabeasproceedings
andnotconsidered bythisCourt.
3H ash'sPetitionforAppealincluded severalmoreassignmentsoferrornotgranted bytheV irginiaSupremeCourt.
3
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58
Filed 02/28/12 Page 4 of 64 Pageid#: 2457
2. Thecourterred in failing togranthabeasreliefspecifically on
Claim A(4),whentheprosecutionusedtheperjuredtestimony
ofPaulCarter.
Hash,686 S.E.2d at212. A sto both assignm entsoferror,the Suprem e CourtofV irginia denied
H ash's petition and affirm ed the CulpeperCircuitCourt. Specifically,the Suprem e Courtof
VirginiaheldthatHash hadttnotm ettheburden ofshowing areasonableprobabilitythat,butfor
counsel's errorin failing to investigate the federalfile and use the letters to furtherim peach
Carter,thetrialwouldhavehadadifferentresult.''li at216.Regardingthesecondassignment
oferror,theSupremeCourtofV irginiaheldthatbecause Hash failed topresentany evidenceof
atçpre-arrangedagreementwiththefederalprosecutortomakeaRule35(b)motion ...Hashhas
failed to establish thatCarter'stestim ony w asfalse''and,consequently,ûtthere can be no w ay to
establish thatthe prosecution knew ofany alleged falsity.'' 1d.at2 17.
On April15,2010,Hash timely filed a federalpetition forwritofhabeascorpusbefore
thisCourt,pursuantto28U.S.C.j2254.OnJuly2,2010,Hashfiledanamendedpetition.The
claim s setforth in Petitioner'sam ended petition are as follow s:
Claim IA: Petitioner'strialcounselrendered constitutionally
ineffective assistance ofcounselwhen they failed to investigate
and im peach the Com m onwealth's key w itness,PaulCarter,a
jailhousesnitch'
,
Claim IB: Petitioner'strialcounselrendered constitutionally
ineffective assistance ofcounselwhen they failed to present
evidence rebutting the Com m onw ealth'sm ulti-perpetratortheory
ofthecase and evidence incrim inating an altelmative suspect;
Claim IIA : The Com m onwea1th violated Petitioner'sdue process
rightsby concealing offersoffavorable treatm entto m ultiple
prosecution w itnesses;and
Claim 11B : The Com m onw ealth violated Petitioner'sdue process
rightsthrough the CulpeperSheriff'sD epartm ent's im properand
offensive investigation.
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58
Filed 02/28/12 Page 5 of 64 Pageid#: 2458
(Dkt.No.12-2).Subsequently,theCourtgrantedPetitioner'sunopposedmotionforballistics
testing,(Dkt.No.28),andgranted Petitioner'soralmotionforfurtherdiscovery,(Dkt.No.34).
Both partiesfiled dispositive m otionsand the Courtheard argum enton January 24,2012. Prior
to oralargument,Petitioneradvised the CourtthatRespondenthad conceded Hash'sability to
show causeandprejudicewith regardtoClaim llA.(Dkt.No.53).
B. H ash's C rim inalT rial
Attrial,Hashwasrepresentedbycourtappointedcounsel,RichardDavis($6Davis'')and
M ichaelT.Hemenway (ûsl-lemenway'').HashwasarrestedinM ay2000,nearly fouryearsafter
Scroggins'July 1996 m urder. The firstdeputy assigned to investigate the case,lnvestigator
DavidCarter(silnvestigatorCa1'
ter''),concludedthatasingleassailanthadcommittedthecrime,
basedonthecrimesceneevidence.(StateHabeasH.Tr.at250,255).Oneofthesuspects
developedwasBillyScott($dScott''),butthecasewentcold.(1d.at258).InNovember1999,a
new Sheriffwaselectedandherevisitedthecase.(JellkinsAff.at!6).lnvestigatorScott
Jertkins(çslnvestigatorJenkins'')andlnvestigatorJamesMack('dlnvestigatorM ack'')werethe
new deputiesassigned to the case. They w ere responsible fordeveloping H ash as a suspect.
D uring trialthe Prosecution presented evidence thatScrogginsw asfound dead in her
home,having sufferedfourgunshotwoundstothehead.Three ofthefourshotswereto the left
side ofScroggins'head and one was to the back ofherhead. InvestigatorJenkinstestified that
the only DN A found atthe scene belonged to the victim and thatalthough five tingerprintsw ere
recovered,no m atch w aseverm ade. Further,no firearm wasrecovered atthe crim e scene that
m atchedthe .22 caliberbulletsrecovered from Scroggins'body.
The Prosecution had no physicalevidence connecting Hash to the Scrogginsm urder. A s
a result,the Prosecution relied on the testim ony ofthree key w itnessesto prove theircase:tçan
5
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58
Filed 02/28/12 Page 6 of 64 Pageid#: 2459
'eyewitness,''EricW eakley(C;W eakley''))
'Hash'scousin,AlesiaShelton(tûShelton'')>
'andCarter,
a know n prison inform ant,to w hom H ash had allegedly confessed the crim e.
W eakley testified thathe,Kloby,and Hash attacked ScrogginsandthatHash shot
Scrogginstdgtjwiceinthesideofthehead ...gtlheleftside.''(TrialTr.at595).W eakleyalso
stated thatKloby shotherin approxim atelythesameplaceand then firedthelastshotintheback
ofherhead.(Id.at596-97).
Shelton testitied thaton the nightScrogginsw asm urdered she overheard H ash and
KlobyatHash'shousetalkingaboutScrogginsand how Cdthey weregoingto do ittonight''and
thatHashsaidtdtheyshouldmakehersuffer.''(1d.at542).Sheltonalsotestifiedthatshesaw
ttthebluecarfrom (Hash'slhouse''parkednearScroggins'house.(Id.at544).Finally,Shelton
testified thaton a lateroccasion she,K loby,and Hash rode theirbicyclesto a church near
Scroggins'houseand atthattimeKloby told herhow heand Hash hadentered Scroggins'house
andshother.(Id.at808-09).SheltonstatedthatwhenKlobysaidthisshelookedatHashand
hetdnoddedhisheadandsaidyes-yeah.''(Id.at810).
Cartertestified thatwhilehewasincarcerated in theAlbem arle-charlottesvilleRegional
JailHashwastçtheonlywhitedudeinourcellblock.''(ld.at726).CarterstatedthatHash
confessed to the m urder,saying he ktshotthe lady twicen''used a .22 caliber gun,and thathe ûtgot
awayinavehicle,hertruckorwhatevershehad,thevehicle....''(ld.at727-28).Carterfurther
testifiedthatHash said he had comm ittedthemurderwith two otherindividualsand thathis
cousin içwastryingtotellonhim whathappenedaboutthewholecaseandeverything.''(Id.at
728).RegardingthetimingofHash'sconfession,CarterstatedthatHashconfessedtohim in
ttApril,M ay,aroundthatarea''of2000.(Id.at730).TheevidenceshowedthatonM ay24,
6
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58
Filed 02/28/12 Page 7 of 64 Pageid#: 2460
2000,Hashwastransferred totheAlbemarle-charlottesvilleRegionalJailand thatCarterfirst
contacted Investigators Jenkins and M ack on June 26,2000.
On cross-exam ination Hash'strialcounselelicited inconsistencies in Carter's statem ent
regarding thenumberoftimesHashhad shotScroggins.However,when asked ifhehad assisted
govelmm enton prioroccasions,Cartertestifed thathehad only doneso on oneprioroccasion.
(ld.at736). Carterwasnotimpeachedonthispoint;despitethefactthathadHash'strial
counselinvestigated they w ould have found evidence thatCarterw as a prolific inform ant.4
Regarding histestimony atHash'strial,Carterstated thatalthough hehad asked the
Com m onwealth'sInvestigators,to whom he had spoken aboutHash'sconfession,to speak to the
U.S.Attorneyonhisbehalf,thelnvestigatorsçkdidn'ttalktohim.''(1d.at734).W henaskedif
thepup oseofhisconversationwith thelnvestigatorswastopotentially reducehissentence,
Carterrespondedttsomewhat,yes....''(Id.at737).Nevertheless,onre-directtheProsecutorwas
able to rehabilitate Carter'stestim ony w ith Carter's answ erthatitw ashisunderstanding thathis
testim ony in the state courtproceedingsagainstHash did nothave any im pacton hisfederal
sentence.(1d.at740).Onre-cross,Hash'scounselcontinuedunsuccessfullytoimpeach
Carter'stestimony.W henaskedwhetherasubstantialassistanceorRule35(b)motionsimply
required tkhelping the prosecutorw ith the case,''Carter answ ered dtYeah,that's a federalcase. lt
don'tsaynothingaboutstatecase.''(Id.at741).
The Prosecution'scase also relied on Hash's statem ents to the police and hisown
testim ony attrial. Specifically,H ash stated thatin the beginning to m iddle partof 1995 he
4EVidenceindicatesthatCarterprovided infonnation ortestimonythatim plicatedatleasttw entypeople inatleast
threedifferentfederalprosecutions.(CarterSentencingHear.Tr.at5-7).
,(CarterStateHabeasDep.Tr.at19-23)*
,
(CarterSentencingHear.Tr.at7)(AnAssistantU.S.AttorneystatedCarterçl
madehimselfavailable...toanybody
andeverybodyinthelaw enforcementcommunitywhenhefelthehadsomeinformationthatwashelpful.'').
lndeed,duringthisgeneraltimeperiodCarterwrote:ttl'm notstillinvolveldlwiththiscrimelife.ljustfindthings
outtocutmytimedown.''(Carter5/8/00Letterto0.Ware).
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58
Filed 02/28/12 Page 8 of 64 Pageid#: 2461
talkedwithKlobyandW eakleyaboutrobbingsomeoneinthearea.(ld.at1153).Hash
explained thatKloby and W eakley w anted to rob som ebody who w ould notputup m uch ofa
tight.(J#=.at1153).Oncross-exnminationHashadmittedthathehadtdassumed''Klobyand
W eakleyweretalkingaboutan oldlady.(Id.at1153).HashalsotestifiedthatKlobymentioned
therobbery a second tim ein atelephoneconversation,and afinaltime Stseveralmonthsdown the
roadtoayearlaterinthemall.''(ld.at1154).Hashdeniedanyparticipationinthemurderand
testifiedthathehadtoldKlobyhedidnotdtwanttohaveanythingtodowith it.''(1d.).Atno
pointduring thepolice interrogation orduringhistrialdid Hash admitto planning tom urder
anyone.
Hash'sdefense attrialincludedtestimonyby 18 witnesses.Hash'scounselemphasized
the contradictory nature of Shelton'sand W eakley'stestim ony and H ash testified in hisow n
defense. W hen asked ifhe shootorhad anything to do w ith Scroggins'm urderH ash answ ered
SkAbsolutelynot.''(ld.at1132).W henaskeddsatanytimedidyoumakeastatementoran
admissionto thisM r.PaulCarterthatyou shotM rs.Scrogginsorkilled herofanything like
that?''HashansweredCtNo,sir.''(1d.at1141).
H ash'scounselalso putforward an alibidefense,supported by the testim ony ofseveral
witnesses.Hashtestifiedhewasatthehomeofhisbestfriend,W illiam Blithe1I1((çBi1ly''),at
thetimeoftheScroggins'murder.(J#-sat1130).However,Hashalsotestifiedthathehad
initially told policethathe w as with Beverly R osenfeld,hisgirlfriend around the tim e ofthe
Scrogginsmurder.(1d.at1136).Hashexplainedthathehadtoldpolicethathewaswith
Rosenfeld becausewhen firstasked 'tthatwasthebestlcould recollectofwhere lwasduring
thatperiodofthatsummer.''(1d.at1143j. Hefurtherexplainedthathehadtoldinvestigators
aboutbeingatBilly'shouseSsthesecondtimetheinvestigatorstalkedto (himl''butthatwas
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58
Filed 02/28/12 Page 9 of 64 Pageid#: 2462
ttm aybethree,threeto fourweeksafterlwastirstinterviewed''and afterhehad spoken with
Billy.(Id.at1149-50).Hash'stestimonywascorroboratedbythetestimonyofhisparents(J
#=.at
843-44,846-48,1072,1074-75).
Hash'strialcounselcalledW illiam L.Blithe,Billy'sfather,and Sieglinde Blithe,Billy's
mother,to corroborateHash'salibi.Billy Blithewascalled asarebuttalwitnessforthe
Prosecution.Each testifiedthatHash wasattheirhom ein M itchell,Virginia,helping Billy fix a
brokenlawntractor.(ld.at872,879-880).W illiam Blithewascross-examined astohisability
torecalldetailsoftheweekend.(ld.at876-77).SieglindeBlithewasalsocross-examinedasto
herability torecalldetailsoftheweekend and astoherability torecallthatparticularweekend
outofthemanyherson andHashhadspenttogether.(J#a.at882-84,885).BillyBlithe,when
questionedby theProsecution,testified thathe initially couldnotrecallifheand Hash had
workedonthetractorontheweekendofthe13thorthe 17thofJuly.(1d.at1217).Oncrossexam ination,how ever,he testified thatH ash wasathishousethe w eekend ofthe Scroggins
murder.(Id.at1222).
C. Hash'sState HabeasProceedings
ln hisstate habeasproceedingsH ash raised prosecutorialm isconductclaim sand several
ineffective assistance ofcounselclaim s. Afterallow ing Petitionerto conductsom e discovery,
the CulpeperCircuitCourtheld an evidentiary hearing on O ctober 16 and 17,2007. A
signiticantquestion atthishearing wastherelativeimportanceand credibility ofCarter's
testim ony againstH ash. Both parties stipulated to Hash'sexhibits,w hich included copiesofthe
lettersthatCarterhadwrittentoJudgeM ichael,afederaldistrictcourtjudge,andother
individualsconcerning Carter's sentence reduction. In total,Carter wrote 25 lettersto Judge
M ichaelandothers,a11concerninghisû135(b)motion''tohavehisfederalsentencereducedin
9
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 10 of 64 Pageid#:
2463
lightofhistestim ony in Hash'strial.Fiveofthoseletterswerewritten beforeCartertestitied at
H ash'sFebruary 2001 trial.
InvestigatorsJenkinsand M ack testified atthe hearing. W hen asked ifCarterhad asked
fora sentence reduction in exchange forhistestim ony againstH ash,lnvestigatorJenkins stated
thatCarterldw anted usto speak w ith the prosecutorhandling hiscase to speak on hisbehalf'but
thatCarterCdwastold we can'thaveanything to do with affecting his- hiscasethathewas
facing.''(StateHabeasH.Tr.at37).InvestigatorJenkinsalsotestitiedthathewasinitially
skepticalofCarter'stestimony,butbecamelessskepticalwhen helearned Carter'sstatem ent
referencedthesamecaliberweaponastheweaponintheScrogginsmurder.(L4,at42).
However,when questioned abouttheexactcontentsofCarter'sstatem ent,theevidenceshowed
Carterstated thatthe murderweapon wasa .22 caliberhandgun,whenin facttheballisticsexpert
concludedtheweaponwasmostlikelya.22caliberrifle.(TrialTr.at44).
lnvestigatorM ack'stestim ony w entto the relative importance ofCarter'stestim ony. In
responsetoquestionsaboutthetestimonyhegaveatCarter'sRule35(b)hearing,lnvestigator
M ack stated thatCarter wasa iisubstantialw itness''and agreed thatonce Carterbecam e a
witnessittichangeldjtheway helookedatthecase.''(StateHabeasH.Tr.at73-74).
lnvestigatorMack furtherstatedthatthecasewastsiffy''withjustShelton andW eakleyas
witnesses.(Id.).ThetranscriptoftheRule35(b)heming,admittedasanexhibitdtlringthe
evidentiary hearing,show ed thatCarterw as originally sentenced to 180 m onths,although he
initiallyfacedthepossibilityofamaximum sentenceoflifeinprison.(Carter35(b)H.Tr.at
l8). ThetranscriptfurthershowedthatJudgeM ichaelgrantedtheRule35(b)motionand
Carter'ssentencewasreducedto60months,(1d.at20),whichwasapproximatelytheamountof
timeCarterhadserved,(J#-.at13).
10
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 11 of 64 Pageid#:
2464
Hash'strialcounselalsotestified atthehearing.Hem enway wasresponsibleforthe
investigation ofCarter. Hetestified thathehadinformation aboutCarterbeforetrial,including
thefactthatCarterwas&tabig drug dealerand thathehad cooperated before and thathehad
reducedhissentencebasedonthatcooperation.''(StateHabeasH.Tr.at214).Hemenway
adm itted thathe did notobtain Carter'sfederalfile priorto Hash's case,despite itbeing a Sçgood
idea''todoso,andthatthelettersinthefilewereSkpotentiallyuseful.''(ld.at178-79).However,
Hem enway did notbelievethatin cross-examining Carterheneeded to usethe letters,because
Cartertalkedfreelyabouthisj5K.1.1motionandhisRule35(b)substantialassistancemotion
andCarterdicertainlydidn'tdenyitthathehadreducedhissentence.''(1d.at215).Davisalso
testified aboutthe importance ofthelettersin Carter'sfederalfile. Davisstated thathe was
awarethatHashwasinvolvedinafederaldrugcase.Healsostatedthattslllookingatgcarter's)
fileyou could learn somethingsperhaps''and admitted thathavingCarter'sletterswould have
beenûçvel'
yhelpful.''(Id.at105).
Nonetheless,Davisdid notbelieveCarter'stestimony wastheonly im portantevidencein
the Com m onw ealth's case,buthis opinion asto the m ostim portantevidence in the case
vacillated.Davisexplainedthatthereason hediscounted thetestimony ofCarterwasbecauseits
tttooeasytolieand,youknow,maybethatjustcomesfrom myperspectiveasalawyerwho
dealswithpeoplelikethat-''(ld.at149).Davisstatedthati'thebiggestpiecethatwethought
thatwasdifferentfrom our case and K loby's case wasnotM r.CarterbutM r.Hash's statem ent.''
(ld.at137).Specifically,DavisexpressedconcernaboutHash'sstatementtothepolicebecause
itinvolveddtlpllanningwiththeothertwoyoungmentogooutandrobo1dpeople.''(Ld=).Davis
also testitied,som ew hatcontradicting hispriortestim ony,thatW eakley w asthe Skbiggest''
witnesstibecauseW eakley(wasqtheonethatsayslwasthereandIsaw thishappen andlsaw
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 12 of 64 Pageid#:
2465
whodidwhat.''(12,at142).Hemenwaytestifedthathedidn'ttcthink (theCommonwealthjhad
aparticularly strong case''and thatthe case ûtw asratified w ith having M r.Cartercom e forw ard.''
(ld.at139).
D . New Evidence U ncovered D uring FederalH abeasProceeding
ThisCourtallow ed H ash'scounselto conductadditionaldiscovery during the federal
habeasproceedings. The new evidence is sum m arized below .5
Carter's Expectations Regarding kis Testim ony in the H ash Case
Hash has presented evidence thatCartertestified falsely attrialw hen he stated thathe
expected tçnothing''in exchange forhistestim ony. Com m onw ealth'sA ttorney G ary Close
(ttcommonwealth'sAttorneyClose'')now concedesthatthisstatementwasnottruthful.(Close
Dep,Tr.at102).SeealsoVa.Sup.Ct.OralArg.Tr.at27-28.Commonwealth'sAttorneyClose
also concedesthatthestatem enthem adein closingargumentregardingwhethertherewasa deal
forCarter'stestimony wasmisleading because,althoughhedid notknow atthetime,Carter's
federalsentencewasconnectedtohistestimonyagainstHash.(CloseDep.Tr.at119-20).
Furtherm ore,InvestigatorJerlkinshasadm itted there w asa dealw ith Carter forhistestim ony
priorto H ash'strial. A tthe State Habeashearing in O ctober2007,lnvestigatorJenkinstestified
that$d(PaulCarterjwastoldwecan'thaveanythingtodowithaffectinghis...case.''(State
HabeasH.Tr.at37).lnhisfederaldeposition,InvestigatorJenkinsreviewedtheletterhewrote
to Carter,w hich states,dtifl'm everasked by the U .S.Attorney in yourcase,Iwilltellhim what
youdid''andtestifiedthattdsoundslikewhatlwouldhavesaid.''(Jenkins3/12/01letterto
Carterl;(JenkinsDep.Tr.at140).Also,whenshownCm er'sstatementthatltscot'
tJenkinshas
5TheCourtrecognizesthatsom easpectsoftheevidencepresentedinthissection werepartially developedinthe
state habeasproceedings.
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 13 of 64 Pageid#:
2466
agreedto talkto theprosecutorifasked formy sake,Jenkinssaid,&çldon'tthink thatwould have
beenalie.lthinkthatcouldhavebeen said,yes.''(JenkinsDep.Tr.at145).
2. Hash'.
&'TransfertotheAlbemarle-charlottesvilleRegionalJailw'
J.
&'Orchestrated
Priorto the federalhabeasproceedings,Culpeperauthorities denied any suggestion that
H ash w astransferred to the A lbem arle-charlottesville RegionalJailto puthim in contactwith
known prison inform ant,Carter.The evidence showsthatHash wasin the RegionalJailforonly
twonightsandspentthesecondnightinacellblockwithCarter.(Shifflet'
tAff.at!5,11).
SherriffLeeHart(stsherriffHalf'ladmittedinhisaffidavitincolmectionwiththeseproceedings
thatHashwastûtransferredfrom theCulpeperCountyjailtoacorrectionalfacility inthe
Charlottesvillearea ...anditwas(hisjunderstandingthepurposewastoobtaininformationby
theinformantfrom Hash.''(HartAff.at!5).SheniffHartfurtherstatedthathewasnot
comfortable authorizingthetransferand told the investigatorto isseek authorization from
Commonwealth'sAttorneyGaryClosebeforesaidtransfer.''(HartAff.at!6). Subsequently,
afterreview ing SheriffH art'saffidavit,Comm onwealth'sA ttorney Close hasadm itted thatHash
wastransferredforthepurposeofexposinghim totheknowninformant,Carter.(CloseErrata)
(ûiAtsomepointintime,lassumepriortothetransfer,IhadaconversationwithBruceCave
whereinhetoldmethattheSheriffsOfficewasthinkingaboutmovingHashtoajailwhere
therewasasnitch.'').
J. TheProsecutionFailedtoDisclosetheDealwith WeakleyforHisTestimony
TheProsecution failed to disclose adealwith W eakley m adeforhistestimony against
Hash.A VirginiaStatePolicereporttiledbyAgentW ayneCarwile(idAgentCarwile'')onJune
15,2000,indicatesthatççEric W eakley's attorney has been in negotiation w ith the
Com m onw ealth's Attorney to m ake a dealwhereby W eakley w ould testify againstHash and
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 14 of 64 Pageid#:
2467
Kloby.''(Carwile6/15/00Reportat2).However,thisinformationwasnotdiscloseduntilJuly
28,2011.
4. W eakley H as Recanted H is Statem ents Implicating H ash
W eakley's sw orn affidavitstates thathehasno personalknow ledge ofthe m urderof
ScrogginsandnoreasontobelieveHashhadanythingtodowith it.(W eakleyAff.at!2).
Further,W eakley statesthatallthe details ofthe Scroggins m urderw ere provided to him by the
Culpeperauthorities.(W eakleyAff.at!5).Inhisfederaldeposition,lnvestigatorM ack
testified thatheand InvestigatorJenkinsdtmay have''shown EricW eakleypicturesfrom the
crimescene.(M ackDep.Tr.at69.) M oreover,lnvestigatorJenkinshasnow statedthathedid
notw antto arrestH ash based on Shelton and W eakley's statem entsbecause $6b0th w itnesses lied
numeroustim esin discussionswith 1aw enforcem entofticials....To thisday,ldo notbelievethe
storytheytold-thatthreeteenageboysmurderedThelmaScroggins- isplausible.''(Jenkins
Aff.at!6).
5. Tlte Prosecution Failed to D isclose W eakley and Shelton 'JPolygraph Results
Both W eakley and Shelton failed polygraph exnminationsregarding theirstatem ents
implicating Hash. Theseexamswere notdisclosed to Hash.Comm onwealth'sAttorney Close
admitsW eakley'sresultswereexculpatory.(CloseDep.Tr.at30).AccordingtoAgent
Carwile,a certified polygraph exam iner,Shelton's testresultsshow ed thatshe wasdeceptive on
every single question asked aboutherstatem entim plicating Hash. A gentCarwile com m ented
thatttanybody thatfailed the exam ination to thisextentwouldn'tbe a very crediblew itnessin
myopinion.''(CarwileDep.Tr.at55).lnvestigatorM acksaidthatinlightofShelton'sfailed
polygraph,itwouldhavebeenappropriatetoCtre-evaluateeverything(shejeversaid.''(Mack
Dep.Tr.at51).
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 15 of 64 Pageid#:
2468
II. Standards ofReview
A. Sum m ary Judgm entStandard
Summaryjudgmentmaybegrantedonlywhenitthereisnogenuinedisputeastoany
materialfactandthemovantisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.''Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a).
M orethananopposingnarrativeisrequiredtodefeatamotion forsummaryjudgmentbecause
Silwlhen opposingpartiestelltwo differentstories,oneofwhichisblatantlycontradictedbythe
record,sothatnoreasonablejurycouldbelieveit,acourtshouldnotadoptthatversionofthe
factsforpurposesofrulingonamotionforsummaryjudgment.''Scottv.Harris,550U.S.372,
380(2007).An otherwiseSsproperlysupportedmotionforsummaryjudgment''willnotbe
defeatedbytheexistenceofmerelyanyfactualdispute,nomatterhow minor;rather,Sslolnly
disputesover factsthatm ightaffectthe outcom e ofthe suitunderthe governing law w ill
properlyprecludetheentryofsummaryjudgment.''Andersonv.LibertyLobby.lnc.,477U.S.
242,247-48(1986).Towithstandasummaryjudgmentmotion,thenon-movingpartymust
producecom petentevidence sufficientto revealtheexistenceofagenuineissueofmaterialfact
fortrial.Thompsonv.PotomacElec.PowerCo.,312F.3d645,649(4thCir.2002).Neither
conclusory allegationsnorthe production ofa Sim ere scintilla ofevidence''in supportofa non-
movingparty'scasesufficestoforestallsummaryjudgment.JJ.
o lncaseswherei'theresultis
obvious,''basedonthepleadings,summaryjudgmentshouldbegranted.Bostick v.Stevenson,
589F.3d160,165(4th Cir.2009).
B. AED PA 'SD eferentialStandard ofR eview
UndertheAntiterrorism andEffectiveDeathPenaltyActof1996(IûAEDPA''),habeas
reliefis available only ifa petitioner'sconviction w asobtained tsin violation ofthe Constitution
orlawsortreatiesoftheUnitedStates.''28U.S.C.j2254.Specifically,thewritmaynotbe
grantedltwithrespecttoanyclaim thatwasadjudicatedonthemerits''in statecourtunlessthe
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 16 of 64 Pageid#:
2469
statecourtadjudication(1)tçresultedinadecisionthatwascontraryto,oranunreasonable
application of,clearly established Federallaw ,asdeterm ined by the Suprem e Courtofthe
UnitedStatesy''28U.S.C.j2254(d)(1),or(2)Ctresultedinadecisionthatwasbased onan
tmreasonabledetermination ofthefactsin lightofthe evidencepresented in the statecourt
proceeding.''28U.S.C.j2254(*(2).6
The Suprem e Courthasexplained thatttcontrary to''and ûtunreasonable application''have
differentmeaningsinthecontextofj2254.A statecourtdecision isûûcontraryto''clearly
established federallaw ifitSiapplies a l'ule thatcontradicts''the governing federal1aw assetforth
bytheSupremeCourt'scases,W illiamsv.Taylor,529U.S.362,404-5(2000),orifthestate
courtçddecidesacasedifferentlythan(theSupremeCourthasjdoneonasetofmaterially
indistinguishablefacts,''Bellv.Cone,535U.S.685,694(2002).W hereas,astatecourtdecision
isan çdunreasonable application''offederallaw ifthe state courtltcorrectly identifiesthe
governing legalnlle butapplies itunreasonably to the factsofa particularprisoner's case ...or
isunreasonablein refusingto extendthegoverning legalprincipleto a contextin which the
principleshouldhavecontrolled.''Conawavv.Polk,453F.3d567,581(4thCir.2006).See
alsoLockverv.Andrade,538U.S.63,76(2003)(ûssection2254(d)(1)permitsafederalcourtto
granthabeasreliefbased on the application ofa govem ing legalprinciple to a setoffacts
differentfrom thoseofthecaseinwhichtheprinciplewasalmounced.'').
A federaldistrictcourtsittinginreview ofastatecourtjudgmentmustaffordthestate
courtdetenninationdeference.See28U.S.C.j2254(* .TheSupremeCourthadexplainedthat
j22544d)containsatdhighlydeferentialstandardforevaluatingstate-courtrulings''that
tsdem andsthatstate-courtdecisionsbe given the benetitofthe doubt.'' W oodford v.V isciotti,
6Because Petitionerdoes notarguethe state courtmadean ttunreasonable determ ination ofthe facts,''the Court
doesnotenumerate the specificsofthatstandard herein.
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 17 of 64 Pageid#:
2470
537U.S.19,24(2002)(percuriam)(internalquotationmarksomitted).Indeed,inthecaseofan
C'unreasonable application''the Suprem e Courthasexplained thatbecause an tdapplication m ust
betobjectivelyunreasonable'''beforeacourtmaygranthabeasrelief,CIAEDPA thusimposesa
'highly deferentialstandard forevaluating state-courtrulings.''' R enico v.Lett,130 S.Ct.1855,
1862(2010),
.Schrirov.Landrigan,550U.S.465,473(2007)(notingktunreasonableapplication''
isnotsynonymouswitherrorbecauseçtltlhequestionunderAEDPA isnotwhetherafederal
courtbelievesthestatecourt'sdeterm ination wasincorrectbutwhetherthatdeterm ination was
unreasonable asubstantiallyhigherthreshold'').
C . Statute ofLim itations
Under28U.S.C.j22444*,apetitionerhasoneyeartofilehispetitionforawritof
habeascorpus. Claimsfiled afterthatdate,in am ended petitionsarebarred unlessthey relate
backtotheclaimsintheoriginalpetition.Grayv.Branker,529F.3d220,241(4thCir.2008).
Claim saredeemed to relateback ifthe claim sCdaretiedto acomm on core ofoperativefacts.''
M avlev.Felix,545U.S.644,664(2005).However,digalnamendedhabeaspetition ...doesnot
relate back ...w hen itassertsa new ground forreliefsupported by facts thatdifferin both tim e
andtypefrom thosetheoriginalpleading setforth.''ld.at650.
D . Evidence Properly C onsidered on FederalH abeas R eview
The U .S.Suprem e Court's decision in Cullen v.Pinholsteraddresses the circum stances
underwhich a federaldistrictcourtm ay considerevidence notpresented to the state habeas
court.131S.Ct.1388,1398(2011)(statingtheCourtgrantedcertioraritoresolvettwhether
review underj2254(d)(1)permitsconsideration ofevidenceintroducedinanevidentiary
hearingbeforethefederalhabeascoulf'l.Pirlholster'sholdinglimitsreview underj2254(d)(1)
Sitotherecordthatwasbeforethestatecourtthatadjudicatedtheclaim onthemerits''because
the language ofthe statute isttbackw ard-looking''and ttrequiresan exam ination ofthe state-court
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 18 of 64 Pageid#:
2471
decision atthetimeitwasmade.'' 131S.Ct.at1398. Seealso Elmore v.Ozm int,661F.3d 783,
850(4thCir.2011)((d(O1urj2254(d)(1)review isgenerallyconfinedtotherecordthatwas
beforethestate(1court.).
N onetheless,there are circum stancesunderw hich a petitioner is allow ed to presentnew
evidenceinfederalcourt.First,iftheclaim wasnotadjudicatedonthemerits,afederalcourt
assessestheclaim denovo.Pinholster,131S.Ct.at1401(limitingCourt'sreasoningtoclaims
underj2254(d));M onroev.Angelone,323F.3d286,297(4thCir.2003)(idlW jhereastate
courthas notconsidered a properly preserved claim on itsm erits,a federalcourtm ustassessthe
claim denovo.'').Furthermore,ifthedistrictcourttindsthatthestatecourtappliedthewrong
law orurtreasonably applied federallaw ,the districtcourtm ay considerthe fullrecord w hen
evaluating the petitioner'sconstitutionalclaim s. Pinholster,131 S.Ct.at 1401. How ever,in
determ ining w hetherthe wrong law w asapplied oran unreasonable application offederallaw
took place,the federaldistrictcourtis lim ited to the evidence before the state habeascourt.
Pinholster,131S.Ct.at1400(tçlEjvidenceintroducedinfederalcourthasnobearingonj
2254(d)(1)review.');Jacksonv.Kelly,650F.3d477,492(4thCir.2011)(ûilnotherwords,
whenahabeaspetitioner'sclaim hasbeen adjudicatedonthemeritsinstatecourt,afederalcourt
isprecluded from supplem enting the record w ith factsadduced forthe firsttim e ata federal
evidentiaryhearing.').
Second,ifapetitionerisattemptingtoshow causeandprejudiceoractualinnocenceto
excuseproceduraldefault,thedistrictcourtmustconsideral1the evidencebeforeitin
determ ining whetherthe applicable standard hasbeen satisfied. H ouse v.Bell,547 U .S.518,
1Presentationand review ofnew evidenceisdisfavoredbecausefederalcourtsreview ingstatehabeasdecisions
werenotintendedtobeççan alternative forum fortryingfactsand issueswhich aprisonerm adeinsuffk ienteffortto
pursuein stateproceedings.''W illiamsv.Tavlor,529U.S.420,437(2000).
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 19 of 64 Pageid#:
2472
537-38(2006).Oncecauseandprejudiceoractualinnocenceisshown,thecourtreviewsthe
claim de novo. W illiam s,529 U .S.at433.
Finally,PetitionerarguesthatPinholsterleftopen thepossibility thatnew evidence,
whichcomestolightduringfederalproceedings,cantransform aclaim previouslyadjudicated
on the m eritsby the state courtto such an extentthatitis no longerfairto say the state court
reached them erits.8 To supportthisassertion, Petitionerrelieson Justice Sotom ayor'sdissentin
w hich she posesthe following hypotheticaland statesthatundersuch circum stancesthe new
evidence should be considered:
Consider,forexam ple,a petitionerw ho diligently attem pted in
state courtto develop the factualbasisofa claim thatprosecutors
w ithheld exçulpatory witness statem entsin violation ofBradv v.
Marvland,373U.S.83,83S.Ct.l194,10L.Ed.2d215(1963).The
state courtdenied reliefon the ground thatthe w ithheld evidence
then known did notrisetothelevelofm ateriality required under
Brady. Before the tim e forfiling a federalhabeaspetition has
expired,how ever,a state courtordersthe State to disclose
additionaldocllmentsthepetitionerhadtimely requestedunderthe
State'spublic recordsA ct.The disclosed docum ents revealthatthe
State w itlzheld otherexculpatory w itness statem ents,butstate law
w ould notpennitthe petitionerto presentthe new evidence in a
successive petition.
Pinholster,131S.Ct.at1417-18(Sotomayor,J.,dissenting).Petitionerarguesthatalthoughthis
hypotheticalisfound inthedissent,themajority'sopiniondoesnotprecludeitsapplication.See
Pilzholster131S.Ct.at1401,1401n.10(ttlsjtateprisonersmay sometimessubmitnew evidence
infederalcourt.'').lndeed,quitetothecontrary,themajorityacknowledgesthepossibilityofan
exception,butreservesthe issue ofwhatfactualcircum stances are necessary to triggeritfora
SRespondentcitestwo casesin supportoftheargumentthatPinholsterdoesnotallow considerationofnew
evidence fortransform ed claim s;how ever,neithercasereachedthePinholstertransform edclaim exception.Stokley
v.Rvan,659F.3d802,807(9thCir.2011)(ûtWeneednotdeterminewhetherPinholsterbarstheconsiderationof
Stokley'snew evidence....'');Telecuzv.Kelly,No.7:l0-cv-00254,20l1WL 3319885,at*8(W .D.Va.Aug.1,
2011)CçWhereverthelinebetweenj22544d)reviewableclaimsandthosepotentiallymeritingbroaderreview,this
isadistinction thatneed notbemadehere.n).
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 20 of 64 Pageid#:
2473
futureholding.SeePinhplster131S.Ct.at1401n.10(tilusticeSotomayor'shypothetical
involving new evidence ofw ithheld exculpatory w itness statem ents ...m ay w ellpresenta new
c1ailn.'').
W hiletheCourtbelievesthisexceptionissensiblebecausenothinginthemajority's
reasoning suggeststhatitintended to limitadiligentpetitioner'sabilityto presentevidencethat
stem med from the State'sfailureto disclosepotentially exculpatory m aterialthisCourtneed not
addressthequestion because itsrulingsherein do notdepend on thisexception fornew claim s.
Jamesv.Schriro,659F.3d 855,876(9thCir.2011)('Tinholsteracknowledgedthatahabeas
petitionerwhoraisesaclaim thatwasnotadjudicatedonthemeritsinstatecourt,andis
thereforenotsubjecttoj22544*,maypresentnew evidenceinfederalcourt....'')(citing
Pinholster, 131S.Ct.at1401).
9
E. Exhaustion
Generally,a federalcourtm ay only granthabeasreliefforexhausted claim s- thatis
those claim sthathave been presented in state courtbefore raising them in federalcourt
O'Sullivanv.Boerckel,526U.S.838,842(1999);Vinsonv.Tnle,436F.3d412,417(4thCir.
2006).Claimsnotpresentedaregenerallyprocedurallydefaulted. W olfev.Johnson,565F.3d
140,160(4thCir.2009).Tobeexhaustedthelegalclaim neednotbearticulated orframedin
9ThisCourtalsonotesthattheFourthCircuithasstatedçïlilftherecordultimatelyprovestobeincomplete,
deferencetothestatecourt'
sjudgmentwouldbeinappropriatebecausejudgmentonamateriallyincompleterecord
isnotanadjudicationonthemeritsforpurposesofj2254(d).''Winstonv.Kellv,592F.3d535,555-56(4thCir.
2010).Thisistruebecausewhileddgelxhaustionrequiresthatthestatecourtshaveanopportunitytoapplythelaw
andconsideral1theevidencerelevanttothepetitioner'
sclaiml,l(wlhenastatecourtrefusestoopineonthemerits
ofaclaim properlypresentedtoit,exhaustionissatisfied.''ld.at555(internalcitationsomitted).Whileitistrue
thatW inston wasdecidedbeforePinholster,andthatinJacksonv.Kellv.650F.3d 477(4th Cir.2011),decided
aherPinholster,theFourth Circuitreversedadistrictcourt'sgrantofhabeascorpusafteranevidentiaryhearingwas
held,the Fourth Circuitneveraddressed the Pirtholsterexception. ln Jackson the Fourth Circuitreversed the grant
ofhabeasbecauseitfoundthattheVirginiaSupremeCourt'sapplicationofStricklandwasnotobjectively
unreasonableastheççnew''m itigation evidencepetitionerintroduced inthefederalevidentiaryhearing,was
cumulative. 650 F.3d at494-95.
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 21 of 64 Pageid#:
2474
statecourtinthesame way asitisinthefederalpetition. Picard v.Comwr,404 U.S.270,277-
78(1971)(notingexhaustionrequiresthatSsthesubstanceofafederalhabeascorpusclaim (isj
firstpresented to thestatecourts''andthatsubstancemaybethesameiûdespitevariationsin the
legaltheoryorfactualallegationsurged''in supportoftheclaiml;Jonesv.SussexIStatePrison,
591F.3d707,713-14(4th Cir.2010)(claim exhaustedwherepetitionercitesacaseandfact
patterninsupportofhisclaim instatecourt);Lenzv.W ashincton,444F.3d295,302(4th Cir.
2006)(courtsshouldnotStallow any semanticconfusiontobarallfederalreview ofpetitioner's
constitutionaldaims'').
However,apetitionermay presentprocedurally defaulted claimsin federalcourtifthe
petitionercanestablishttcauseandprejudice''forhisorherfailuretoexhaustaclaim orthathis
orhercontinementconstitutesaktmiscaniageofjustice.''W olfe,565F.3dat160.A petitioner
canshow causebydemonstrating'isomeobjectivefactorexternaltothedefense(thatlimpeded
counsel'seffortstocomplywiththeState'sproceduralrule...gincludinglthatthefactualor
legalbasis fora claim w asnotreasonably available to counsel,orthatsom e interference by
officialsmadecomplianceimpracticable.''Murrayv.Carrier,477U.S.478,488(1986)(internal
quotationmarksandcitationsomitted).Tomakeashowingofprejudicethepetitionermust
dem onstratethatthecomplainedofconductcaused realharm to thepetitioner.SeeW ainwricht
v.Sykes,433U.S.72,84-85(1977).
A petitionerdemonstratesatdmiscarriageofjustice,''through ltlajpropershowingof
actualilmocence.''W olfe,565F.3dat160(citingHouse,547U.S.at536-37).A petitioneris
diactuallyinnocent''ifSçitismorelikelythannotthatnoreasonablejurorwouldhaveconvicted
(thepetitioner)inlightofthenew evidence.''Schlupv.Delo,513U.S.298,327(1995).10 The
:0ûç(Ajj2254petitionerisentitledto haveaSchlup actualinnocenceissueaddressed and disposedofinthedistrict
court.''Wolfe,565F.3datl64(citingBouslevv.UnitedStates,523U.S.614,623(1998)).
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 22 of 64 Pageid#:
2475
purposeoftheactualinnocenceexception isçdto balancethe societalinterestsin finality,com ity,
andconservationofscarcejudicialresourceswiththeindividualinterestinjusticethatarisesin
theextraordinary case.''Id.at324.Indeed,thisexception toproceduraldefaultreflectssociety's
Gtfundnmentalvaluedeterm ination ...thatitisfarworseto convictan innocentm an than to 1eta
guiltymangofree.''InreW inship,397U.S.358,372(1970)(Harlan,J.,concurring).Because
thisstandardidfocusgesqtheinquiryonactualinnocence...thedistrictcourtisnotboundbythe
rulesofadm issibility thatwould govern attrial.lnstead,the emphasison ûactualilmocence'
allow sthe reviewing tribunalto considerthe probative force ofrelevantevidence thatw aseither
excludedoftmavailableattrial.'' Schlup,513 U.S.at327-28.Finally,atspetitioner'sshowing of
innocence isnotinsufticientsolely because the trialrecord contained sufficientevidence to
supportthejury'sverdict.''Id.at331.1l
111.ProceduralBars: Exhaustion and Tim eliness
Beforeaddressingthemeritsofeach claim ,theCourtmustaddresstheexhaustion and
timelinessargumentsm adeby theparties.The RespondentarguesthatClaim sIB and IlB have
notbeenfullyexhaustedandthatClaim IlB isnottimely.(Dkt.No.45at!!8,11,12).12
Petitionerargues,in thatalternative,thatthe claim sare appropriately exhausted and tim ely or
thatPetitioner'sevidence,includingthenew evidencefrom thisproceeding,satisfiesthe actual
innocence exception to proceduraldefault. The Courtconsidersboth argum entsand tindsthat
l1Althoughsatisfyingthisstandard Gtrequiresasubstantialshowing''theSupremeCourtwascarefultostatethatthis
standard isnotso high astheççstandardthatgovernsreview ofclaim sofinsufficientevidence ...which focuseson
whetheranyrationaljurorcouldhaveconvicted''and'tlookstowhetherthereissufficientevidencewhich,if
credited,could supporttheconviction.'' Schlup,5l3U .S.at330.
12A lthough Respondentinitially arguedthatClaim lIA wasnotfullyexhausted, (Dkt.No.45at!9),Respondent
hasnow concededthatHashcanç<show causeandprejudicesuchthatanyproceduraldefaultrelatingtothatClaim is
excused,andthat,accordingly,theCourtshouldreview theClaim denovo,''(Dkt.No.53).
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 23 of 64 Pageid#:
2476
Petitioner'sClaim IB isfully exhausted and Claim l1B ispartially exhausted and partiallytimely.
Additionally,Petitionerhassatistied the actualirm ocence exception to proceduraldefault.
A . A ctualInnocence
Hash arguesthathesatisfiesSchlup'sactualinnocenceexceptionto proceduraldefault
based on an evaluation ofa11the evidence before thisCourt. In particular,Petitionerpointsto
theevidenceof(1)widespreadpolicemzdprosecutorialmisconduct,includingthefactthat
SheltonandW eakley'sfailedpolygraphswerenotdisclosedtoHash'strialcounsel,(2)
W eakley'srecantationofhistrialtestimonyagainstHash,and(3)theevidencethatScott
committedthecrime.(Dkt.No.49at28).UnderSchlup,ashowingofactualinnocencerequires
iinew reliableevidence ...thatwasnotpresented attrial''sufficientsuch thattûitismorelikely
thannotthatnoreasonablejurorwouldhaveconvicted (thepetitionerjinlightofthenew
evidence.'' 513 U .S.at324,327. Furtherm ore,Sûschlup m akes plain thatthe habeascourtm ust
considertalltheevidence,'old and new,incrim inating and exculpatory,withoutregardto
whetheritwould necessarily be admitted underçdrulesofadm issibilitythatwould govern at
trial.''House,547U.S.at538(citingSchlup,513U.S.at327-28quotingFriendlysIsIlmocence
lrrelevant?CollateralAttackonCriminalJudgments,38U.Chi.L.ReV.142,160(1970)).
First,Hash hasprovided significantevidenceoftheextentofthepoliceand prosecutorial
m isconductthattook place during the investigation and prosecution ofhis case. Specifically,
Hashhascomeforwardwith evidenceshowing(1)hewastransferredtotheAlbemarleCharlotlesville RegionalJailto be exposed to a known prison infonnant,Carter,which nm s
countertotheexplanation offeredthroughoutthestatehabeasproceedings;13(2)Investjgator
Jenkinsprom ised to speak to theU .S.Attorney's oftsce regarding how Carter'stestim ony was
13seeinfraSectionIV .B.I.
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 24 of 64 Pageid#:
2477
beneficialintheHashcase,andtospeakata35(b)hearingifrequestedtodoso,butthe
Culpeperauthoritiesdeniedtheexistenceofanysuchagreement;14(3)Carterwasallowedto
testifyfalselyatHash'strialthatheexpectednobenefitfrom histestimonyils(4)Letterswritten
byCartertotheCulpeperofficialswereneverproducedtoHash'strialcounsel;(5)reportsof
polygraph exam inationsgiven to W eakley and Sheltonwereneverproducedto Hash'strial
counsel;16(6)theProsecution concealednegotiationswithW eakleyregardingapleaagreement
inexchangeforhistestimony;17(7)Cu1peperinvestigatorsprovidedW eakleywithaccessto
crimesceneinformation andguidedhisanswerstotheinvestigator'squestions;(8)Investigator
Jenkinstestitied falsely atH ash'strialregarding whetherW eakley's interview sw ere recordedil8
(9)lnvestigatorCartersaw aweaponmatchingthecaliberweapon usedtomurderScrogginsat
the hom e ofanothersuspect,Scott,butfailed to take custody ofthe w eapon and run aballistics
report.19
Indeed,Respondenthasgenerallyadmittedthatdtgtlhereareanumberofimproprietiesin
thiscase...noquestionaboutit.''(Fed.Dist.Ct.H.at30).Furthennore,Respondenthasnot
challenged Hash's evidence ofpolice and prosecutorialm isconducton the basis ofits reliability.
Atleastoneotherdistrictcourthasfound thatevidenceofpoliceand prosecutorialm isconductis
abasisupon which apetitionercan satisfy the actualinnocence standard. SeeLiskerv.
Knowles,463F.Supp.2d 1008(C.D.Cal.2006),abrogatedbyLeev.Lampert,610F.3d 1125
14
15Id.
'6seeinfraSectionIv .B.2.
17ld.
181d.
19ld.
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 25 of 64 Pageid#:
2478
(9thCir.2010).lnLisker,thecourtfoundtheactualinnocenceexceptiontoproceduraldefault
w as established w here:
(11ajailhouseinformanttowhom Petitionersupposedlyconfessed
offered sim ilartestim ony in othercases,had accessto inform ation
aboutPetitioner'scasewhich wasapotentialsourceofa
m anufactured confession ...recounted facts in conflictw ith the
evidence,and appeared to have had undocum ented priorcontacts
withpoliceinPetitioner'scase;(2)alikelysuspectwithaviolent
crim inalrecord gave very suspicious statem entsto police soon
afterthemurderbutwasinvestigatednofurther...;and(31
misstepsintheinvestigationlikelytaintedtheoriginaljuryverdict
assuggested by variousfactsincludingthatthe detectivein charge
ofthe case threw aw ay,oratleastdid notpreserve,key evidence
and made misstatementsto stateauthoritiesaboutthecaseyears
later.
463F.Supp.zdat1042.LikeLisker,Hash'scasepresentsevidenceof(1)manufactured
statementsbyCarterand W eakley,whichalsocontradictedthecrimesceneevidence;(2)
undisclosedcommunicationsbetweenthepoliceandCarterandW eakley'
,and(3)afailureto
seize and testarifle found atthe house Scottlived in atthe tim e ofthe m urderthatm atched the
caliberandtypeofweapon used tokillScroggins.
Second,W eakley hasnow recanted histestim ony againstH ash,stating that(&lhave never
been to M s.Scroggins'house,and Ihad nothing to do w ith herm urder. 1also have no reason to
believethatM ichaelHashhadanythingtodowithhermurder.''(W eakley Aff.at!2).
Furthennore,W eakley now atteststhatthe testim ony he gave C'attrialaboutthe crim e scene w as
giventomeduringinterviewswithpoliceandprosecutors.''(W eakleyAff.at!5).Specifically,
W eakley stated thatduring hisinterviewsdsthe investigatorsbecam eextrem ely frustrated and told
m e w hatlw as saying w asn'tm atching up w ith w hatthey already knew . W hen lw ould answ er
questionsin a w ay they didn'tlike,the investigatorsw ould suggestthatlw aslying or confused.''
(W eakleyAff.at!6).
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 26 of 64 Pageid#:
2479
Respondentchallengesthereliability ofW eakley'srecantation arguingthatrecantations
areCtlookeduponwith theutmostsuspicion,UnitedStatesv.Johnson,487F.2d 1278,1279(4th
Cir.1973)(internalquotationsandcitationsomitted),andthatthefactsinthepresentcaseare
distinguishablefrom thoseinHousev.Bell,547U.S.518(2006).(Dkt.No.51at!46,Dkt.No.
45,at!!94,98,99).W hiletheCourtacknowledgesthatrecantationsareinherentlysuspicious,
thatdoesnotm ean they arenevercredible. ln Hash'scase,theCourtfindsthereissufficient
evidence thatcorroboratesW eakley'srecantation to renderitcredible. Specifically,during a
May 11,2000,interview ofW eakley,InvestigatorJenkinsaskedW eakley(kwheredid(Kloby
andHash)tellyouthattheyshotgscrogginsj?''andW eakleyansweredltonceintheheadand
onceinthechest.''(W eakleyInterview 5/11/00at50).ltwasnotuntilInvestigatorJenkins
asked the sam e question approxim ately five m ore tim es,adm onishing W eakley by stating dtwe
can'thave you add anything into it''and t$ldon'tw antyou to add to thatsom ething,whetherit
bethechest,thetoeoranything else''thatW eakley altered hisstory and said ût-l-hey shotherin
thehead,''(W eakleylntelwiew 5/11/00at51-53).ThismatchesW eakley'sswornstatementthat
the lnvestigatorsoften becnm e frustrated with him and coached him w hen he w asnotgiving the
tûcorrect''answers.(W eakleyAff.at!6). Second,lnvestigatorJenkinshasattestedtothefact
thathebelievesW eakley Gtlied numeroustim esin discussionswith 1aw enforcementofticialsin
CulpeperCotmty''andhasstatedthatûtltlothisday,Idonotbelievethestory gW eakleyand
Sheltonjtold-thatthreeteenageboysmurderedThelmaScroggins- isplausible.''(JenkinsAff.
at!6).IndependentcorroborationisprovidedbythefactthatW eakleyfailedhispolygraph
examination.He wasfound to bedeceptivewhen asked ifKloby and Hash told him they had
shotScroggins.(W eakleyPolygraphat2).Additionally,duringthepolygraph,tûW eakley
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 27 of 64 Pageid#:
2480
admittedthatthestatementheprovidedtopolicethatMike(HashlandJason (Kloby)toldhim
theyshotThelmaScrogginswasnottrue.,,(Id.).20
Indeed,H ash's case sharesa num ber ofsim ilarities with W olfe,where a habeaspetitioner
successfullym eetthe Schlup standard based on therecantation ofhisco-conspiratorwho
testified againstthe petitionerattrial. N o. 2:
05-cv-432,slip op.at7(E.D.Va.Feb4,2010).21 ln
W olfe,the co-conspirator'srecantation w as corroborated by otheraffidavits,butthe coconspiratorhad since recanted hisrecantation. ln lightofthese troubling circum stancesthe
districtcourtlookedtothefactthat(llttgujnlikemostrecantations,(theco-conspiratorldoesnot
escapeliabilityorimprovehisownsituationbyhisrecantation,''(2)ûsgtheco-conspiratorl's
affidavitalsohaldlconsiderableconoboration''intheform ofotherconsistentaftidavits,and(3)
thiswasdinota casewith voluminousdirectevidence.''Id.at7-9.Despite thefactthatthecoconspiratorsubsequently rescinded his recantation,the courtnonetheless found thatthe initial
recantationttlwlasenoughtoraisedoubtinareasonablejuror'smind''astowhetherthe
petitionercom m itted the m urder. 1d.at10.
Hash'scase,ifanything,isstrongerthan W olfe.W eakley,liketheco-conspiratordoes
notstand to gain from hisrecantation and W eakley'saffidavitiscorroborated by the
contem poraneoustranscriptofone ofW eakley'sinterview s,lnvestigatorJenkins'aftidavit,and
by W eakley'spolygraph failure. Furtherm ore,in H ash's case,as in W olfe,there isno physical
20Petitioneralsoputsforward thestatementbylnvestigatorM ackthatheorlnvestigatorJenkinsitm ay have''shown
W eakleycrimescenephotographs,asadditionalcorroborationofW eakley'srecantation.(MackDep.Tr.at69).
TheCourthasconsideredthisevidencebutdoesnotfind itaspersuasiveastheothercitedevidencebecauseitis
partially contradicted by lnvestigatorJenkins'statem entthatw hile W eakley may havebeen shown crim e scene
photographsthey ttwouldn'tshow anythingthatcouldprovidedetailsofthecrim ethatarenotknown bythatperson
orthepersonsthatweren'tinvolved.'' (JenkinsDep.Tr.at78).
21W olfe wasbefore theEastern D istrictofVirginiapursuantto a rem and by the Fourth Circuitforthe express
pum ose ofconsidering petitioner's Schlup claim .
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 28 of 64 Pageid#:
2481
evidence linking Hash to the crim e scene. Finally,W eakley has notrecanted his recantation,in
contrastto the co-conspiratorw hose recantation w as nonetheless found sufficientin W olfe.
Third,Hash hascom e forw ard w ith significantevidence thatanothersuspect,Scott,m ay
have com m itted the crim e. Attrial,although no w eapon w asrecovered atthe crim e scene,the
Commonwealth'stirearm exam inerwasableto determinethattheweapon used to killScroggins
wasmostlikely .22rifleandpossiblya.22W inchesterritle.(TrialTr.at474,476).Scott,who
livednearScrogginsatthetimeofhermurder,wasaninitialsuspectinthecase.(StateHabeas
H.Tr.at188).A manmatchingScott'sdescriptionwasseentheday afterScroggins'murderin
thesameareaasScroggins'truckwasultimately folmd.(ld.at232).lnJuly 1999,Investigator
Cartervisited the hom e Scottlived in atthe tim e of Scroggins'm urderand w as show n a
W inchester.22 rifle,butlnvestigatorCarterdid nottakepossession oftherifleand itwasnot
testeduntilthecun-entfederalproceedings.(ld.at243).Aspartofthefederalproceedings,the
W inchester.22riflethatInvestigatorCarterhad seen in 1999 wastested by DFS.DFS
concluded thatdidue to the tim e betw een events,lack ofsufficientdissim ilarities,itw asnot
possibleto definitively elim inate''theW inchester.22 ritleastheriflethatfiredthebulletsfound
atthecrimescene.(Dkt.No.29at2).
In Housev.Bell,the Suprem eCourtfound theactualinnocenceexceptionto procedural
defaultwasestablished where evidencethatthevictim 'shusband,and notthe petitioner,had
commitledthecrimewasnotpursuedorpresentedtothejury.547U.S.518(2006).The
Suprem eCourtnotedthatalthough theevidencepointing tothehusband wasCçby nom eans
conclusive,''itnonethelessC'satisfied the gatew ay standard setforth in Schlup.'' H ouse,547 U .S.
at552,555. Likewise,although the evidence in H ash'scase isfar from sufficientto
'tconclusively''determ ine thatScottm urdered Scroggins,the Schlup standard doesnotrequire it
28
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 29 of 64 Pageid#:
2482
be so.Schlup issatisfied whenthenew evidenceweighed againsta1ltheevidenceisenough to
createdoubtinthemindofareasonablejuror.
A ccordingly,the Courtfindsthatthisisone ofthose rare casesw here the petitionerhas
satisfiedtheactualinnocenceexceptiontoproceduraldefaultbecauseHashhas(dpresentgedl
evidence ofinnocence so strong thata courtcannothave confidence in the outcom e ofthe trial
unlessthe courtis also satisfied thatthe trialwasfree ofnonharm lessconstitutionalerror....''
Schlup,513 U .S.at316. The com bination ofprosecutorialand police m isconduct,largely
conceded orunchallenged bytheRespondent;W eakley'scorroborated recantation;andthe
evidence thatanothersuspect,Scott,m ay have actually com m itted the m urder,when w eighed
againstthe factthatthe Com m onw ealth's lack ofphysicalevidence linking Hash to the crim e
and the contradictory and unreliable statem ents of Carter,W eakley,and Shelton,itis clearH ash
hassatisfied Schlup'sactualinnocence standard.
B. Claim IB : Failure to Presentan A lternate Theory ofthe C rim e
RespondentarguesthatPetitioner'sclaim isprocedurally barred insofarasheseeksto
presentevidencethathistrialcounseltifailgedjtoinvestigatethecrimescene,''(Dkt.No.45at!
8),anddcwereineffectivefornotpresentingthesingleperpetratorclaim''(Dkt.No.51at!3).
H ow ever,Respondentconcedesthatttto the extentH ash isagain arguing thathis counselfailed
topresentevidencethatotherpersonscommittedthemurder,hisclaim isexhausted.''(Dkt.No.
45at!8).Petitionerarguesthata1laspectsofthisineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaim were
presented andthereforetheclaim isproperlybeforethisCourt.(Dkt.No.49at14-15).The
Courtagreesw ith Petitionerand finds thatal1aspectsofClaim IB are exhausted.
In H ash'sPetition forA ppealofthe CulpeperCircuitCourt'sdenialofhisstate H abeas
PetitiontotheVirginiaSupremeCourt(dtpetitionforAppeal'')Hashdetailedthefailureofhis
trialcounseltopresentanalternatetheoryofthecrime.(PetitionforAppealat28)(CdAtnotime
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 30 of 64 Pageid#:
2483
wasanyothertheoryeverpresentedtothejurysothejuryhadonlyonechoice.').Thisfailure
included both the failure to presentthe crim e scene evidence directly and the failure to present
testim ony by lnvestigatorCarter,the investigatorresponsible forprocessing the crim e scene.
Specifically,H ash stated:
(Ajl1theforensicevidence...pointstoasingleperpetrator.Itis
impossible forthreepeopleto go up anddown thehallinthe
Scroggins'hom ewithoutdisturbingany oftheblood dropson the
floororw ithoutknow ing anything over. There is no way that
W eakley and Petitionerpicked up Scrogginsand dragged herdown
to thatback bedroom . There isno indication,w ithin allofthe dust
and dirton the floorofthatresidence,thatthree good sized m en
stom ped around in thathouse. There isno w ay thatW eakley ran
from room to room in thatresidence,especially when thedoorsto
theotherroomswerestilllatched shut,with no footprintsin those
rOOIM.S....
(PetitionforAppealat26-7)(emphasisomitted).Further,Hashdescribedthefailureofhistrial
counselto presentthe testim ony ofInvestigatorCarter,who concluded thatbased on the ddcrim e
scene ...he hasno doubtthatthere w as only one person who com m itted the crim e''because
Hash'strialcounselCksimplyfailedtoseeitssignificance.''(Petition forAppealat27-8).
Furtherm ore,H ash's argum entsin hisPetition forA ppealflow directly from the
Culpeper CircuitCourt's denialofthis claim . ln discussing the evidence presented atthe
evidentiary hearing,the CulpeperCircuitCourtnoted Investigator Carter's opinion thattûtwo,
tllree orm oreindividualsin M rs.Scroggins'house atthetimeofthemurderwouldhave left
moremarksthanwerefound.''(StateHabeasCir.Ct.Op.at11). TheCulpeperCircuitCourt
then denied the claim ,holding Eithatthe attorneys forpetitionerm ade a reasonable investigation
intotheevidencerelated to the otherpersonsofinterestandthereafterm adea reasonable
decision''with regardtotheirtrialstrategy.(StateHabeasCir.Ct.Op.at19).
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 31 of 64 Pageid#:
2484
UnderPicard alegalclaim need notbearticulated in exactlythesame mannerbeforethe
statecourtsasbeforethe federalcourts.Indeed,theexhaustion inquiry only seeksto determine
ltwhether,on the record and argum entbefore it,the ...Courthad a fairopportunity to consider
. ..
(the)claim andtocorrectthatassertedconstitutionaldefect....''404U.S.at276.Here,both
the Culpeper CircuitCourtand the Virginia Suprem e Courtw ere presented w ith a m ore than
sufficientopportunity to rule on the m eritsofPetitioner'sclaim ,regarding trialcounsel's failure
to presentan alternate theory ofthe crim e. Thatargum entisthe sam e argum entthatPetitioner
now requests this Courtto consider:thattrialcounselshould have presented an alternate theory
ofthe crim e supported by the available evidence thatthe crim e w ascom m itted by a single
perpetratorand evidence ofw ho thatsingle pep etratorm ighthave been. Respondent'srequest
thatthisCourtview Petitioner'sargumentregarding thepresentation ofan alternate theory ofthe
crimeasmultipleseparateargum ents- presentationofothersuspects,presentation ofcrime
scene evidence,and presentation ofthe single perpetratortheory - only som e ofw hich are
exhausted strainslogic and doesnotcom portwith Picard'sûtfairpresentation''standard.
C . Claim lIB : Investigation V iolated H ash'sD ueProcessR ights
Respondentraisesboth exhaustion and timelinessasproceduralbarsto thisCourt's
authority to considerthe m eritsofthe claim .
1. Exhaustion
RespondentarguesthatH ash neverpresented the claim thatthe CulpeperCounty
Sheriff'soffice w as guilty ofm isconductto the V irginia Suprem e Courtbecause itw as not
includedinHash'stûassignmentsoferror''pledbeforetheVirginiaSupremeCourt.(Dkt.No.45
at! 1l).Petitionerrespondsthattheclaim isproperlybeforethisCourtbecauseHashçdciteda
factpatternandcasesinhisstatepaperssufficienttoexhausttheclaim.''(Dkt.No.49at23).ln
supportofthisargum ent,Petitionerreferencesthe allegationsofm isconductcontained in his
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 32 of 64 Pageid#:
2485
brieftotheVirginiaSupremeCourtandRespondent'sresponsetothoseallegations.(Dkt.No.
45-5at37-38andDkt.No.45-6at27).TheCourtagreeswithPetitionerthatClaim lIB is
exhausted,withtheexceptionofthefactsrelatingtoTommyLightfoot(tdlsightfoof').
Asaninitialmatter,theCourtnotesthattheFourthCircuithasrejectedtheargumentthat
aclaim m ustbeincluded in apetitioner'sassignm entsoferrorsto beexhausted.Jones,591F.3d
at714(describingthisargumentasaûttechnicalargument''anddecliningtofindaclaim isnot
exhaustedsimplybecauseitisnotpresentedinanassignmentoferror).
Petitioner'sbriefto the V irginia Suprem e Courtincluded the follow ing allegations:Ct-l-he
Sheriffs Office had a file on PaulCarterthathas since disappeared. The investigatorshad a
habitoffeeding and prodding witnessessuch as W eakley and Shelton. The highly suspicious
transferofPetitionerwastheresultofadditionalgovemmentalactivity.''(Dkt.No.45-5at38).
Respondentcom m ented on these allegations:dt-f'
he petitionerarguesthatprosecutorial
misconductwasshownbythemovementofHashtotheCharlottesvillejailwherehe
encounteredCarter.''(Dkt.No.46-6at27).Accordingly,thesefactsindicatethatHash'sclaims
ofm isconductinsofarasthey relate to Hash's transferto the A lbem arle-charlottesville Regional
Jailand im properconductin relation to witnessesCarter,W eakley,and Shelton have been
properly exhausted.Furthermore,concenzsaboutthehandlingoftheinvestigation under
Investigator Carterw ere broughtto lightduring the evidentiary hearing atw hich Investigator
Cartertestified,ruled on by the CulpeperCircuitCourt,discussed in Petitioner'sVirginia
Suprem e CourtPetition forA ppeal,and m entioned in Petitioner'sbriefbefore the V irginia
Suprem e Court.22
22TheV irginiaSuprem eCourtPetition forA ppeal, commenting on the investigationofothersuspectscompletedby
InvestigatorCarterstated:ç%Butthem oststartling revelation ofallwastheM odel63W inchesterRitle.ltwas
knownthatthiscouldverywellbethemurderweapon,butitwasneverseizedortested.''(PetitionforAppealat3031)(internalcitationsomitted).Furthermore,inhisbriefbeforetheVirginiaSupremeCourt,Petitionerstatedtt-fhe
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 33 of 64 Pageid#:
2486
However,Lightfootisdiscussed substantively forthetirsttimeintheam endedpetition,
whichPetitionerconcedes.(Dkt.No.49at24)(ds-l-hefactualbasesrelatingto eachaspectofthe
claim weresetforth in Hash'sOriginalPetition,otherthanthefactsrelatingto Tommy
Lightfoot.'')23 Accordingly,the Courtfinds thatalthough the allegationsofm isconductare
nearly identicalasto those regarding W eakleyand Shelton,becauseLightfootdid nottestify at
trialand wasneversubstantively discussed inthestatehabeasproceedings,thePetitionerhasnot
exhausted hisstate rem ediesw ith regard to m isconductconcerning Lightfoot.
Tim eliness
Respondentarguesthateven ifthis claim is exhausted itis notproperly before thisCourt
becauseitisnottimely asany tûclaim ofpolicem isconductiscompletelyunrelated to anyofthe
originalclaims.''(Dkt.No.45at! 13).Respondentspecificallychallengestheclaim tothe
extentitisdirectedatLightfoot,Scott,andtheinterrogationofW eakley andShelton.(ld.at!
16).Petitionerarguesthattheclaim istimelybecauseunderthestandardsetforthinMavlev.
Felix,545U.S.644(2005),theclaim relatesbacktoHash'soriginalfederalhabeaspetition.
UnderM ayle an amendm entrelatesback solong asthereisai'comm on coreofoperativefacts.''
545 U .S.at659. The C ourtagreesw ith PetitionerthatClaim IIB istim ely,w ith the exception of
the aspectsofthe claim thatrelateto Lightfoot.
Hash'soriginalpetitionsetsfol'thfactsregardingtheinvestigation ofScott,(Dkt.No.1,
at!!22-23),how thenewlyelectedSheriffstartedtheinvestigation overfrom thebeginning
withlessexperiencedpersonnel,(1d.at!!24-26),theinvestigators'conductduring Shelton's
policedevelopednumeroussuspects,butno arrestsweremadeattbetime. (SeegenerallyPet.Exh.1,4-27).''(Dkt.
No.45-5at5).
23Lightfootism entioned in Hash'sbriefbeforetheVirginiaSupremeCourt, butthere isno substantive discussion.
(Dkt.No.45-5at7).
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 34 of 64 Pageid#:
2487
interview,(Id.at!!30-33),theinvestigators'conductduringW eakley'sinterview,(Id.at!!3441),andHash'stransferfrom theCulpeperCountyJailtotheAlbemarle-charlottesville
RegionalJail,(Id.at!!43-52).Hence,al1thefactualbasesfortheallegationsofpolice
misconduct,presented in theam ended petition,werepresented in theoriginalpetition,with the
exception oftheallegationsconcem ing Lightfoot.Accordingly,al1theallegationsexceptthose
regarding Lightfootstem from atscommon coreofoperativefacts''and thusrelateback to the
originalpetition and areproperly beforethisCourt.M ayle,545 U.S.at659.Becausethe
allegationsagainstLightfootare nottim ely,thiscourtdoes notconsiderthem .
IV . D iscussion
Petitionerpresentsfourclaimsin hispetition forhabeascorpus.Claim sIA and IB are
Sixth A m endm entineffective assistance ofcounselclaim s. Claim s l1A and IIB are claim sunder
the Due Process Clause ofthe Fourteenth A m endm ent.
A . H ash's Ineffective Assistance ofCounselC laim s: Claim sIA and IB
In Claim IA ,H ash assertsthathis trialcounselw asineffective forfailing to fully
investigate Carter. H ash arguesthata properinvestigation w ould have revealed inform ation that
counselcould have used attrialto underm ine Carter'stestim ony,which ultim ately proved
dam aging to Hash'scase. ln Claim 1B,Hash assertsthathistrialcounselwasineffectivefor
failing to presentan alternate theory ofthe crim e based on evidence from the crim e scene and
testim ony from lnvestigatorCarter. H ash arguesthathad counselpresented an alternate theory
ofthe crimeitwould haveunderm inedtheProsecution'stheorythattltreepeople,Hash,Kloby,
and W eakley,m urdered Scroggins.
Strickland controlsboth ofH ash'sSixth A m endm entineffective assistance ofcounsel
claims.466U.S.668(1984).Toprevailonanineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaim,a
34
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 35 of 64 Pageid#:
2488
petitionermustdemonstratethat(1)counsel'sperformancewasdeficientand(2)thedeficiency
prejudicedthedefense.Strickland,466U.S.at687.Toestablishdeficientperformance,a
petitionermustshow thathis(tcounsel'srepresentationfellbelow anobjectivestandardof
reasonableness.'' ld.at688. ln so doing,the petitionerSçm ustidentify the actsorom issions of
counselthatareallegednottohavebeentheresultofreasonableprofessionalconduct.''JlJZat
690.Courtsm ustSsindulgea strong presumption''thatdefensecounsel'sconductfellwithinthe
boundsofreasonableconductto avoid the distortion ofhindsight. Yarbrough v.Johnson,520
F.3d329,337(4thCir.2008)(quotingStrickland,466U.S.at689).Indeed,dscounselisstrongly
presum ed to have rendered adequate assistance and m ade allsignificantdecisionsin the exercise
ofreasonableprofessionaljudgment.''Strickland,466U.S.at690.
Toestablishprejudice,apetitionerçimustshow thatthereisareasonableprobability,but
forcounsel'sunprofessionalerrors,the resultofthe proceeding w ould have been different.'' ld.
at694.The Suprem eCourthasdefined attreasonableprobability''as(iaprobability sufticientto
undenuineconfidenceintheoutcome.''ld.at694.Specifically,tigwlhenadefendantchallenges
aconviction,thequestion iswhetherthereisareasonableprobabilitythat,absent(counsel's)
errors,the facttinderw ould have had a reasonable doubtrespecting guilt.'' Id.at695.
,see also
Haningtonv.Richter,131S.Ct.770,792(2011)(ût-l-helikelihoodofadifferentresultmustbe
substantial,notjustconceivable.'').However,thatisnottosaythepetitionermustprovethatthe
jury'sverdictwouldhavebeendifferent.Gravv.Branker,529F.3d220,234-35(4thCir.2008)
(reversingandawardinghabeasreliefbecausethestatecourt,inassessingprejudice,asked
whethertheEjurywouldnecessarily''havereachedadifferentconclusionbutforcounsel's
deticiency).Further,sincetheprejudicedeterminationrequiresthecourttottconsiderthetotality
oftheevidencebeforethejudgeorjury ...averdictorconclusiononlyweaklysupportedbythe
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 36 of 64 Pageid#:
2489
record ism orelikely to havebeen affected by errorsthan onewith overwhelmingrecord
support.''Strickland,466U.S.at696,
.seealsoBrownv.Smith,551F.3d424,434-35(6thCir.
2008)(çfW herethereisrelativelylittleevidencetosupportaguiltyverdicttobeginwith ...the
magnitudeoferrorsnecessaryforafindingofprejudicewillbelessthanwherethereisagreater
evidenceofgui1t.'').Finally,afindingofprejudiceismorelikelyappropriatewherethejuryhas
a false im pression ofthe reliability ofa key prosecution w itness. See,e.g.,M onroe,323 F.3d at
314(ttlftheprosecutionhadcompliedwith itsdisclosureobligations,however,(thewitness'sl
testim ony would have been significantly undermined,and thereisareascmable probabilitythat
the...prosecution ...wouldhavecollapsed.'');Boonev.Paderick,541F.2d447,448(4thCir.
1976)(holdingawritofhabeascorpusshouldissuewhereiûtheprosecutorconcealedanofferof
favorabletreatmentto(petitioner'slprincipalaccuser''andidlhladthejuryknownofthe
prosecutionwitness'compellingmotivationtoestablish (petitioner's)guilt,thereisareasonable
likelihooditsverdictmighthavebeendifferenf).
N onetheless,in the contextofahabeaspetition the Strickland standard has been
described as dldoubly deferential''because the deferentialreview underA EDPA overlaps with the
deferentialstandard underStrickland. Pirlholster,131 S.Ct.at 1410-1411. Courtsm usttiapply
the tw o standards sim ultaneously ratherthan sequentially,''w hich tsim poses a very high burden
forapetitionerto overcome,becausethese standardsareeach çhighlydeferential'to the state
court'sadjudicationand,ûwhenthetwoapplyintandem,review isdoublyso.'''Richardsonv.
Branker,Nos.11-1,11-2,2012W L 362038,at*7(4thCir.Feb.6,2012)(quotingHarrington,
131S.Ct.at788)(citationsandinternalquotationmarksomitted).
1. Claim .
f.
42 TrialCounsel'sFailure to Investigate and Impeach PaulCarter
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 37 of 64 Pageid#:
2490
ThisCourtreviewswhethertheVirginia Supreme Court'sholdingthatisbecause Carter's
credibility wassufticiently impeached byHash'sattorneysregarding hismotivation for
testifying and because the letters did notprovide additionalim peachm entinform ation,Hash has
notshownthatthereisareasonableprobability ofadifferentresulthad Hash'sattolmeys
im peached Carterw ith his letters,''Hash,686 S.E.2d at213-14,w asSiincorrectto a degree that
thisconclusionCwassolackinginjustiticationthatgitjwasanerrorwellunderstoodand
com prehended in existing law beyond any possibility forfair-m inded disagreem ent.'''
Richardson,2012W L 362038,at*9(quotingHarrinaton,131S.Ct.at786-87).24 TheCourt's
review islim ited to the record before the V irginia Suprem e Court. Pinholster,l31 S.Ct.at 1398
(notingj2254(d)(1)review islimitedtotherecordbeforethestatecourt).
The V irginia Suprem e Courtconcluded thatH ash's trialcounsel'sconductw asnot
prejudicialchieflybecauseitviewedthelettersinCarter'sfederalfileascumulative.Hash,686
S.E.2d at216. TheVirginia Suprem eCourtreasonedthatS'thelettersdid notprovideadditional
impeachm entto whatHash'sattorneyshad accomplishedthrough eliciting testimony from
Carterabouttherelationship between histestim ony againstHash and areduction ofCarter's
sentence.''Ltl,Hash'sargumentthatCarter'stestimonywasasigniticantreasonforhis
conviction,wasrejectedbecauseHash's(Cattemptstominimizethesignificanceofhisown
statementstothepoliceandtrialtestimony''wereunpersuasivein lightofthefactthattkgaltthe
habeashearing Hash'sattorneystestified thatthey considered Hash'spretrialstatementstothe
24TheCulpeperCircuitCourtandtheVirginia SupremeCourtboth foundthatHash'strialcounsel'sfailureto
investigateCartersatisfedthedeficientperform anceprong ofStrickland.Respondentconcededthisargum ent
when hefailedto challengeitinbriefing beforetheVirginia SupremeCourt.Hash,686 S.E.2d at212 (t<The
Com m onwealth did notappealthe circuitcourt'sholding thatthe performance ofHash'sattorneys attrialwas
deficientunderStrickland.'').Accordingly,forClaim lA,theonly questionbeforethisCourtiswhethertheVirginia
SupremeCourt'sdecisionregardingprejudicet<resultedinadecisionthatwascontraryto,oranunreasonable
applicationofkclearlyestablishedFederallaw.''28U.S.C.j2254(d)(1).
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 38 of 64 Pageid#:
2491
policeand histrialtestim ony to bethebiggestdistinction between Hash'sconviction and codefendantK loby's acquittal.'' ld.
Notwithstandingthedeferentiallensthroughwhich thisCourtmustreview theVirginia
SupremeCourt'sruling,theVirginiaSupremeCourt'sconclusionwasobjectivelyunreasonable.
A snoted above,a state courtdecision is an ilurtreasonable application''offederal1aw ifthe state
courtdtcorrectly identifiesthegoverning legalrulebutappliesitunreasonably to the factsofa
particularprisoner'scase...orisunreasonable in refusing to extend the governing legalprinciple
to acontextin which theprinciple should havecontrolled.''Conaway,453 F.3d at581.The
VirginiaSupremeCourt'sdecisionrunsafoulofthisstandardbecauseit(1)ignored
contradiction betw een Carter'stestim ony attrialand the statem entsm ade in his letters,w hich
indicatedtheletterswerenotsimplycumulativeand(2)failedtoconsidertheimpactlettersin
Carter'sownhandwritingwouldhavehadonthejury,asopposedtohisstatementsoncrossexam ination.
First,attrialCartertestifiedthathewasexpectingû'nothing''forhistestimony.(TrialTr.
at729).Furtherheanswerediino''whenaskediflnvestigatorJenkinsandlnvestigatorMackhad
promisedhim anything.(Id.at729).On cross-examination,Carteradmittedtohavingspokento
InvestigatorsJenkinsandM ack aboutHash andhavingrequested help with hisfederalsentence,
buthe continued to deny the factthathe expected them to help him . Specifically,
Q:Youcalledtheinvestigators,andafteryougavethem
inform ation,did you ask them thatifitwas possible,forthem to
speak on yourbehalfto the U .S.Attom ey?
A : Y eah,1did.
Q:Okay.
A : Butthey didn't.
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 39 of 64 Pageid#:
2492
Q:Excuseme?
A : They didn't- they didn'ttalk to him .
(ld.at733).Laterduringcross-examination,Carteradmittedtoknowingwhatasubstantial
assistance m otion w asand stated thathe had only testified againstdione dude''previously in
ordertogetasubstantialassistancemotion.(Id.at735-36).Carterfurtheradmittedthathe
knew whataRule35(b)motionwas,butcruciallydeniedknowledgeofwhetheronecouldgeta
Rule35(b)motionfortestimonyinstatecourt:
Q:Okay.Now,underthefederalnlles,youknow whataRule
35B is,don'tyou?
A : Yes,Ido.
Q:Andwhydon'tyoutellthejurywhatthatis?
A : lt'sw here you com e back within a yearto getyourtim e cut.
Q:Okay.Soyoucan furtherreduceyoursentenceifyou testify
w ithin tw elve m onthsofJuly 3rd of2000,isthatright?
A : I don'tItnow ifthe state appliesto the fed.
Q:W ell,whenyoucalledthe-whenyoutalkedtothe
investigators,that'swhatyour- that's whatyou called them about,
right?
A :W hen Icalledtheinvestigators?
Q:W henyoucalledM r.Closeandwhenyoutalkedtothe
investigators,wasn'tthatforthe purpose ofreducing yoursentence
potentially?
A : Som ew hat,yes,butifsom ebody - thatcould have been m y
grandm other,your grandm otherorsom ebody else. lwould feel
som ebody else w ould do the sam e thing form e.
(J#=.at735-37)(emphasisadded).Further,when askedwhetherasubstantialassistanceorRule
35(b)motion simplyrequiredtûhelpingtheprosecutorwiththecase,''CarteransweredçtYeah,
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 40 of 64 Pageid#:
2493
that'safederalcase.Itdon'tsaynothingaboutstatecase.''(ld.at741).However,this
testim ony w as false and m isleading. H ad H ash's trialcounselbeen in possession ofthe lettersin
Carter's federaltile they could have proven itwhile Carterw as on the stand. Specifically,
Carter'slettersto JudgeM ichaelandtheProbation OfficeoftheW estern DistrictofVirginia
sentbeforeHash'strialstated:
* 6tlhavetalkledltotheD.A.ofCulpeperGal'yCloseandthetwoleaddetectivelslinthis
case and they are w illing to com e to courtform e to tellhow m y inform ation help assist
them intheregsiclcaseandhelpgottheregsicqmanformurder.''(Carter8/13/00letter).
* ç$1'm verysurethatlwillreceivethemotionforRule35(b).''(Carter10/26/2000letter).
* til'm very surethatlwould begranted the Rule35bm otion ....ScottJenkinsthepolice
thatgislheadingthemurdercasesaidhewouldspeakformeatmyRule35(b).''(Carter
11/7/2000letter).
* i$Italk to Gary Close the prosecutorofCulpeperCo and the police ScottJenkins. 1gave
som e key statem entsaboutthe CapitalM urdercase on M ichaelH ash. They both are
m orethan w illing to talk on m y behalfin court. lknow thatthis is enough to file forthe
Rule35b.''(Carter11/8/00letter).
Thus,the letters in Carter's federaltile directly contradicted Carter'stestim ony,
demonstratingthatCarterbelieved hewaseligibleforasentence reduction based on his
testim ony atH ash'strial. The letterscould have been used to im peach Carter's statem entthathe
expected tinothing''in return for histestim ony,hisûtno''answerto the question ofw hetherthe
Investigators had prom ised him anything in exohange forhis testim ony,and his statem entthathe
didn'tknow (iifthe state appliesto the fed.'' Furtherm ore,because Hash'strialcotm selwasnot
able to specifically contradictCarter's statem entthathe expected idnothing''in return forhis
testimonythejurywasnotinformedofthepotentialimpactCarter'stestimonyinHash'strial
would have on Carter's federalsentence because al1thatwasrevealed on cross-exam ination was
thatitm ightbe possible forCarterto receive a sentence reduction Clifthe state appliesto the
40
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 41 of 64 Pageid#:
2494
fed.''Thus,thejurywasnotgivenanopportunity toappreciateCarter'spowerfulmotivationto
fabricate histestim ony to ensure he received the m axim um sentence reduction possible.
Second,im plicitin the V irginia Suprem e Court'sdeeision thatthe lettersw ere
cumulativeandthatfailuretousethem wasnotprejudicialwastheunderstandingthat
impeachmentwithouttheletterswasjustaspowerfulasimpeachmentbasedontheletters.
H ow ever,this m isapprehendsthe applicable law because a11im peachm entisnotofthe sam e
quality. Here,Carter'slettersnotonly contained information revealing Carter'strue
expectations,they conveyed histrue expectationsm ore pow erfully than counselwasableto elicit
oncross-exnmination.SeeUnitedStatesv.Pacelli,491F.2d 1108,1119(2dCir.1974)
(reversingaconviction andorderinganew trialwheregovemmenthadfailedtodisclosea
witness'sletterbecauseSigajlthough appellant'scounselpossessedanabundanceofimpeaching
materialwhich he exploited attrial,noneofthisinformation conveyed quite so forcefully as
(witnessl'sletter'l.lndeed,incasesdiscussingtheprejudicestandardinthecontextofBradv
violations,the Suprem e Courtand the Fourth Circuithave highlighted the im portance of
presenting the actualevidencethata w itnesshasm otive to testify falsely,as opposed to m erely
asking aboutm otive on cross-exam ination. See e.g.,G iglio v.U nited States,405 U .S.150,151
(1972)(findingprejudiceeventhoughStgdlefensecounselvigorouslycross-exnmined,seekingto
discreditgwitness'sltestimonybyrevealingpossibleagreementsorarrangements'l;Boone,541
F.2dat451(acknowledgingthatevendùdefensecotmsel'sûsearingattack'''oncross-examination
wasnotenoughtoovercomethejury'sbeliefitthatitresteduponconjecturewhichthe
prosecutordisputed'');Monroe,323F.3dat314(rejectinggovenunent'sargumentthat
notw ithstanding m issing evidence revealing governm ent's agreem entw ith a key w itness,dtitw as
41
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 42 of 64 Pageid#:
2495
obvioustothejurythat(thewitnessqexpectedconsiderationfrom theprosecutioninexchange
forhertrialtestimony'').
The Courtis also notpersuaded by Respondent's attem ptto dim inish the im portance of
Carter's testim ony atHash's trial. RespondentassertsthatCarter'scredibility w ould nothave
been im peached by the use ofthe lettersbecause dlcarter'scredibility w as established by his
knowledge ofcriticalfactsaboutthe m urder''and (ionly the killers could have know n such
details,''Hash,686S.E.2dat213;seealso(Dkt.No.48at!!51,53,57),orthatCarter's
testimonydkwasnottheonly,oreventhemostimportant,differencebetween gKlobyandHash'sj
trials,''(Dkt.No.48,at!56).lnfact,Respondentconcededthisveryargumentbeforethe
Virginia Supreme Court. Aspartofaline ofquestioning abouttheevidencein thecase,when
asked iftheComm onwealth had isany statementfrom thepetitionerplacing him atthe scene?''
the Com m onw ea1th responded $CN o,Y our Honor,none w hatsoever.... Butprim arily,w hatyou
haveistestimonyfrom PaulCarterthatthedefendanthadconfessedincludingdetails.''(Va.Sup.
Ct.OralArg.Tr.at20-21).Clearly,Carter'stestimony-becauseitwastheonlyevidencethat
Hash confessed to the crim e - wasan essentialcom ponentofthe Com m onw ealth,scase.25
Furtherm ore,Respondent's argum entfaltersbecause itseeks to hold Petitionerto a
standard thateven Strickland does notim pose. UnderStrickland apetitioner isnotrequired to
disproveorimpeach every detailofthe State'strialevidence. Seee.c.,Strickland,466 U.S.at
693(normustapetitioner(dshow thatcounsel'sdeficientconductmorelikelythannotalteredthe
outcomeinthecase''l;Griffenv.W arden,970F.2d 1355,1359(4th Cir.1992)(reversingand
awarding habeas reliefbecause districtcourtrequired petitionerto Sddem onstrate affirm atively
that,butfortrialcounsel'sunprofessionalerrors,theresultswouldhavebeen differenf').
25see also infra Section IV .B.I(highl
ighting inaccuraciesinCarter'sinitialstatementto theinvestigators).
42
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 43 of 64 Pageid#:
2496
lndeed,allthatisrequired isareasonableprobability thattheresultattrialwould havebeen
different,w hich isdefined asa probability çdsufficientto underm ine confidence in the outcom e.''
Strickland,466 U .S.at693-94.
Thus,the V irginia Suprem e Courtunreasonably applied Strickland when itheld that
Hash'strialcounsel'sfailuretoinvestigateCarter'sfederalfilewasnotprejudicial.ThisCourt
findsthatHash'strialcounsel'sconductwasprejudicialbecausetheletterswerenotcumulative,
butratherprovided directevidence thatCarterlied w hiletestifying and provided evidence not
elicited on cross-exam ination ofCarter'spow erfulm otivation to fabricate histestim ony.
A ccordingly,Hash isentitled to habeas reliefon Claim lA .
2. Claim IB . F ailure to Presentan A lternate F/le/r.poftheCrime
Hash arguesthattheCulpeperCircuitCourt'srefusalto find thathistrialcounsel's
failure to presentevidence ofan alternatetheory ofthe crim e constituted deficientperform ance
wasanobjectivelyunreasonableapplicationofStrickland.26 Respondentcountersthatthis
strategywasreasonablebecausebeforethetrialEûtheattorneys(werejtoldtherewerenoviable
suspects''byaCulpeperSheriffsDeputy.(Dkt.No.45,at!40).ThisCourt'sreview ofthe
CulpeperCircuitCourt'sholding is lim ited to the record before the Culpeper CircuitCourt.
Pinholster,131 S.Ct.at 1401.
The CulpeperCircuitCourt,in denying H ash relief,held:
ln consideringthetotality oftheevidencebeforethejury,
and the evidence from the hearing,thisCourtconcludes
thatthe attorneysforpetitionerm ade a reasonable
investigation into the evidence related to the otherpersons
ofinterestand thereafter m ade a reasonable decision to
26TheCourtlookstothereasoningoftheCulpeperCircuitCourt'sopinion denyinghabeasreliefbecausethe
V irginiaSuprem eCourtdid notgrantHash'sPetitionforAppealonthisclaim ,andthustheCircuitCourt'sdecision
isthelaststatecoul'
tdecisionon themeritsofthisclaim.Y1stv.Nunnemaker,501U.S.797,801-02 (1991).
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 44 of 64 Pageid#:
2497
pursue adefense on thetheorythatEric W eakely was
involved in themurder.
(CulpeperCir.Ct.Op.at19).Initsreasoning,thecourtidentifiedthecorrectlegalstandard:
tt
the Sixth A m endm entim poses on counsela duty to investigate,because reasonably effective
...
assistance m ustbe based on professionaldecisionsand inform ed legalchoicescan be m ade only
afterinvestigationofoptions.''(ld.at18-19(quoting Strickland,466U.S.at680)). And
correctly explained thatfaillzre to S'conducta substantialinvestigation into each ofseveral
plausible linesofdefense...may nonethelessbe effective''provided counseldoesnotSdexclude
certain lines ofdefense forotherthan strategic reasons.... Those strategic choices aboutw hich
linesofdefense to pursue are ow ed deference com m ensurate with the reasonablenessofthe
professionaljudgmentsonwhich theyarebased.''(Id.at19(quotingStrickland,466U.S.at68081)).
H ow ever,in itsapplication ofthose principlesto H ash's case the CulpeperCircuitCourt
erred,even when view ed through AEDPA 'S deferentiallens. The CulpeperCircuitCourt
explainedthatbecauseHash'strialcounsel(1)ttwereprovidedwithnumerouspolicereports
whichtheycopied andreviewed,''and(2)becauseistheydiscussedthecasewith glnvestigatorl
Carterand heexplainedthatthe leadshad gonecold and the investigation wasata dead end,''it
wasreasonable conductforHash'strialcounselto notattemptto proveW eakley'stestimony was
falseandtonotpresentanalternatetheoryofthecrime.(Ld=).
Thisdoesnot,how ever,satisfy Strickland's requirem entofa reasonable investigation.
Contrary to R espondent's argum ent,itisnota reasonable strategic choice fordefense counselto
rely on the tinding ofa police investigation. Counselhas an obligation to m ake its own
independentinvestigation and notto rely on the investigation com pleted by the police. See
Elmore,661F.3dat854(tindingcounsel'sperformancewasdeficientwhentheywereûçlulled
44
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 45 of 64 Pageid#:
2498
intoinactionbythebeliefthatthepolicewereabovereproach'');Andersonv.Johnson,338F.3d
382,392(5thCir.2003)(counselwasineffectivewhenS'hereliedexclusivelyonthe
investigative w ork ofthe State and based hisow n pretrialkinvestigation'on assum ptionsdivined
from areview oftheState'sfiles'').lndeed,therequirementofreasonableinvestigationis
particularlyimportantinlightofthefactthatSdfaillureqtomakeareasonableinvestigation''
rendersûtan infonued tacticaldecision ...im possible.'' Bellv.True,413 F.Supp.2d 657,699
(W .D.Va.2006).
In Elm ore,theFourth Circuitgranted an ineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaim based on
a failure to investigate. A lthough the state's case hinged on the forensic evidence collected atthe
scene,the petitioner'strialattonzeys isconducted no independentanalyses ofthe State's forensic
evidence''andtçdidnototherwisemistrusttheState'scaseagainst(thepetitionerl.''Elmore,661
F.3d at853-54,861. Regarding the duty to investigate under Strickland,the Fourth Circuit
com m ented:
A healthy skepticism ofauthority,while generally advisable,is an
absolute necessity fora law yerrepresenting a clientcharged w ith
capitalm urder. A fterall,the custodiansofauthority in our
dem ocracy are ordinary people w ith im perfectskills and hum an
m otivations. The duty ofthe defense law yerdûisto m ake the
adversarialtesting processw ork in the particularcase,''Strickland,
466 U .S.at690,104 S.Ct.2052- a11obligation thatcannotbe
shirked because ofthe law yer's unquestioning contidence in the
prosecution.
ld.at859. A lthough forensic evidence isnotatissue in this case,asthere is none linking Hash
to Scroggins'm urder,H ash'strialcounsel's failtlre to presentan alternate theory ofthe crim e
had the sam e effectasElm ore'sattorneys'failure to challenge the forensic evidence. In H ash's
case,the Com m onw ealth's case depended critically on H ash'salleged confession to Carterand
to a lesserextentthe testim ony ofW eakley. Carterand W eakley'stestim ony w ere the prim ary
45
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 46 of 64 Pageid#:
2499
piecesofevidenceestablishing Hash'spresenceatthesceneofthecrim eand establishing the
Com m onw ealth'sbeliefthe m urderhad been perpetrated by three individuals. H ash'scounsel's
failure to presentan alternate theory,including evidence from the crim e scene and the testim ony
oflnvestigatorCarter,w ho believed the m urderwascom m itted by a single perpetrator,m eant
Hash w asprevented from effectively contesting hispresence atthe crim e scene and thushis
connection to the m urder.
M oreover,the CulpeperCircuitCourt'sfurtherexplanation thatbecause diD avid Carter
and theotherinvestigatorswerenotableto develop any evidencethatdirectlylinked the persons
ofinterestto the m urder,orto Eric W eakley...the Courtconcludesthatitisunlikely thatsuch
evidencewould havebeen allowed atthetrial''doesnotrenderHash'strialcounsels'failureto
investigatereasonableunderStrickland.(CulpeperCir.Ct.Op.at20(citingJohnsonv.
Commonwea1th,529S.E,2d 769,784(Va.2000)).HadHash'scounselconductedan
independentinvestigation and notbeen able to find any adm issible evidence ofan alternate
theory ofthe crim e,then H ash'strialcounsel'sdecision notto presentan alternate theory ofthe
crim e m ighthave been reasonable.H owever,thatisnotthe case here -l-lash'scounselfailed to
conductany independentinvestigation. H ash'scounselappearsto have m ade no attem ptto
develop evidence linking personsofinterestto the m urderand instead sim ply relied on the
police'sstatementthatthey could notbelinked. BecauseHash'strialcounselneverpursued an
independentinvestigation into an alternate theory ofthe crim e,butinstead accepted the police's
investigative w ork and conclusions,itthere could be no reasonable strategic decision eitherto
stop the investigation orto forgo use ofthe evidence thatthe investigation w ould have
uncovered.'' Elm ore,661 F.3d at864.A ccordingly,the CulpeperCircuitCourt'sapplication of
46
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 47 of 64 Pageid#:
2500
theStricklandperformanceprongwasobjectivelyunreasonableandHash'strialcounsel's
perform ance w as,in fact,deficient.
H aving established thatthe Culpeper CircuitCourt's application ofthe perform ance
prongofStricklandwasobjectivelyunreasonableandthatHash'strialcounsel'sfailureto
presentan alternate theory ofthe crim e constituted deticientperform ance,this Courtm ustnow
considerwhetherthatdeficientperformancewasprejudicial.TheCulpeperCircuitCoul'
tdidnot
considerwhetherHash'strialcounsel'sdeticientperformancewasprejudicialandthusin
makingtheprejudicedeterminationthisCourtispermittedtoconsideralltheevidencebeforeit.
SeePinholster,131 S.Ct.at 1401.
ThisCourtfindsthatH ash'strialcounsel'sfailure to investigate and presentan alternate
theoryofthecrimewasprejudicial.W henweighingtheevidencethecourtmustAççconsiderthe
totalityoftheevidencebeforethe...jury'indeterminingwhethertherewasdareasonable
probability,thatbutforcounsel'serrors,adifferentverdictwould havebeen returned.'''Elm ore,
661F.3dat868(quotingStrickland,466U.S.at695).Specifically,inthecontextofafailureto
investigate claim the Fourth Circuithas said Clthe courtshould have evaluated the collective trial
evidencetogetherwiththecollectiveevidencethatareasonableinvestigation ofthe State's
forensicevidencewouldhaveuncovered.''Ld.aat868.
Had Hash'strialcounselconducted a reasonable investigation and presented evidence of
analternatetheoryofthecrimethatevidencewouldhaveshownthejurywhythe
Com m onw ealth's m ulti-pep etratortheory w asinconsistentw ith the evidence atthe crim e scene.
lnparticular,Petitionercouldhavepresentedevidenceshowingthat(1)thehallwayof
Scroggins'hom e where she w as m urdered w astoo narrow to accom m odate thzee people and thus
itwaslikelythecrimewascommittedbyasingleperpetrator,(StateHabeasH.Tr.at248-250,
47
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 48 of 64 Pageid#:
2501
255);(2)thedriver'sseatofScroggins'truck,recoveredthedayaherthemurderapproximately
one m ile from herhom e,w as positioned (tup underneath the steering wheel,''which w ould have
madeitdtverydifficult''forsomeonesixfeetortaller,suchasHash,todrive,(1d.at257))(3)
anothersuspect,Scott,wasknown to haveaccessto the sam ecaliberritlethatwasusedto
murderScroggins,(StateHabeasEx.7);(4)ScottlivedwithinwalkingdistanceofScroggins,
(StateHabeasEx.4);(5)amanmatchingScott'sdescriptionwasseentheday afterthehomicide
nearthelocationwhereScroggins'truckwasfound(StateHabeasEx.10)'
,(6)Investigator
Jenkins'statementthatisBilly Scottwasnevereliminatedasasuspect,''(JenkinsAff.at!5).
,and
(7)InvestigatorJenkins'statement:ttlhaveveryseriousconcernsabouttheconvictionofM ike
Hash.lbelievetheSheriff'sDepartm entinvestigation wasnothandledproperly.Based on the
evidence atthe crim e scene,lbelieve itis highly unlikely thatthree teenage boysm urdered M rs,
Scroggins,''(JenkinsAff.at! 14). Thisevidence,whichstrongly refutestheCommonwealth's
theory ofthe case,weighed againstthe overallw eaknessofthe Com m onw ealth'scase,w hich
includedno physicalevidencelinkingHash to themurder,com pelsthe conclusion thatthereisa
reasonableprobabilitythat,butforthefailureofHash'scounselto investigateand presentan
alternate theory ofthe crim e,Hash'strialwould have been decided differently. See Stoufferv.
Revnolds,214F.3d 1231,1234(10thCir.2000)(tindingprejudicewheretrialcounselfailedto
presentcrime sceneevidenceshowing itnum erousinconsistencieswith theState'stheory ofthe
case'').BecauseHashhasestablisheddeficientperformanceandprejudice,thisCourtgrants
Hash'srequestforhabeasreliefon Claim IB .
B. Due Process V iolations: Claim sIIA and 1lB
In Claim IIA ,H ash alleges thatthe Prosecution orchestrated Carter'stestim ony and
concealed a dealw ith Carterthatgave him favorable treatm entin exchange for histestim ony
againstHash.Hash furtherallegesthattheProsecutionthenknowinglyusedCarter'sperjured
48
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 49 of 64 Pageid#:
2502
testimony. ln Claim 1lB,Hash arguesthattheCulpeperCounty SheriffsOfficeand the
Prosecutor'sconductduringtheinvestigation deprived Hash ofhisrightto dueprocess.
1. Claim IIA: TheCommonwealth ConcealedDealwith CarterandOg eredPerjured
Testim ony
Hash arguesthatthe evidenceestablishesthatCulpeperofficialsorchestrated Carter's
testimony and had an agreem entwith Carterthatthey failedto disclose,in violation ofHash's
righttodueprocessunderGigliov.United States,405U.S.150(1972),andNapuev.Illinois,
360U.S.264 (1959).27 Throughoutthe statehabeasproceedings, Respondentdeniedknowledge
ofany attem ptto orchestrate Carter'stestim ony. A srecently asAugust24,2011,
Com m onw ealth'sA ttorney Close testified thatH ash had been transferred to the A lbem arle-
CharlottesvilleRegionalJailtobeclosertohiscounsel.(CloseDep.Tr.at83)(CtgDlefense
counselwasfrom Charlottesvilleand they,you know,itwasa long driveforthem to comeup to
Culpeperandsoithelpedthem somewhattomovehim downcloser....'').However,on
Decem ber2,2011,SheriffH artadm itted thatH ash w astransferred to be exposed to Carter:
(OjneoftheinvestigatorsapproachedmetoproposethatHashbe
transferred from the CulpeperCounty Jailto a correctionalfacility
in the Charlottesville area,and itw as m y understanding the
purpose wasto obtain inform ation by the inform antfrom Hash....
ldid notfeelcom fortable approving the proposed transfer.
Instead,ltold the investigatorto seek authorization from
Com m onw ealth's Attorney G al'y Close before said transfer.
(HartAff.at!5,6).Subsequently,onJanuary6,2012,nearlyfourandahalfmonthsafterhis
deposition,Com m onw ealth's Attorney Close tiled an errata adm itting to the conversation
concerning H ash'stransferand conceding thatHash wasm oved to Charlottesville to be putin
thepresenceofan infonnant.(CloseErrata)(G1Atsomepointintime,Iassumepriortothe
27BecauseRespondentconcededthatHashcanshow causeandprejudicewithregardtothisclaim,theCourt
reviewsthe claim de novo.
49
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 50 of 64 Pageid#:
2503
transfer,lhad aconversation with BruceCavewherein hetold methattheSheriffsOfficewas
thinkingaboutmovingHashtoajailwheretherewasasnitch.'').Respondenthasalsoconceded
thatE$a prom ise oragreem entw asm ade by Jenkins thathe w ould in facttalk to the U .S.attorney
onbehalfofCarter,ifin factaskedbytheU.S.attorneyorCartertodo so.''(Fed.Dist.Ct.H.at
22-23).Despitetheseconcessions,RespondentmaintainsthatHashhasnotshownheisentitled
to habeasreliefbecause the prom ise oragreem entbetween lnvestigatorJenkins and Carterw as
notthekind ofprom iseoragreementthatm ustbedisclosedunderGiglio andthustherewasno
violation ofH ash's due processrights.
To establish a due process violation underGiglio,a petitionerm ustshow thattherew asa
concealedpromiseoragreementandthattheconcealmentwasmaterialandthereforeprejudicial.
iiG iglio and N apue seta clearprecedent,establishing thatwhere a key w itnesshasreceived
consideration orpotentialfavorsin exchange fortestim ony and liesaboutthose favors,the trial
isnotfair.''Tassinv.Cain,517F.3d770,778(5thCir.2008).lnNapue,theState'sprincipal
witnesstestitied thatdthe had received no prom ise ofconsideration in return forhistestim ony''
when lttheAssistantState'sAttorney had in factprom isedhim consideration....'' 360 U.S.at
265.Notwithstandinghisknowledge,theAssistantState'sAttorney did notcorrectthewitness's
testim ony. ln holding thatsuch a failure to correcttestim ony violated the defendant'sdue
processrights,theSupremeCourtreasonedttgtlhejury'sestimateofthetruthfulnessand
reliability ofa given w itnessm ay w ellbe determ inative ofguiltorinnocence,and itisupon such
subtle factorsasthe possible interestofthe w itness in testifying falsely thata defendant'slife or
liberty m ay depend.'' ld.at269.ln Giclio,building on Napue,the Suprem eCourtruled thatnot
only isfailuretocorrectperjuredtestimony adueprocessviolation,butthattheStateisrequired
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 51 of 64 Pageid#:
2504
todisclosesuch agreementsandunderstandings.28 Giglio,405U.S.at154-55(reversing
convictionwhereçiGovernment'scasedependedalmostentirelyongaparticularwitnessj's
testim ony''and Governm entfailed to disclosetheagreementbecausedscredibility asawitness
w as therefore an im portantissue in the case,and evidence ofany understanding oragreem entas
toafutureprosecutionwouldberelevanttohiscredibilityandthejurywasentitledtoknow of
*
1t,,).
UnderGicliq,failuretodiscloseismaterialandthusprejudicial,ifistthefalsetestimony
could ...inanyreasonablelikelihoodhaveaffectedthejudgmentofthejul'y....'''405U.S.at
154(quotingNapue,360U.S.at271).Prejudiceissaidtoexistçiwhenthegovernment's
evidentiary suppression underm inesconfidence in the outcom e oftrial.'' Kyles v.W hitlev,514
U.S.419,434(1995).
Respondent'sattemptto distinguish thepresentcasefrom Giglio and itsFourth Circuit
progeny,Boone,541F.2d 447,isunpersuasive.Respondentarguesthatboth Giclio and Boone
involved actualprom ises- a prom ise notto prosecute and a prom ise notto arrest,respectively w hereas,the prom ise in H ash's case w asnotsufficiently definite to rise to the levelthatrequired
disclosure,In supportofthisdistinction and Respondent'sposition thatonly certain typesof
agreem entsm ustbe disclosed,Respondentrelieson a line ofcasesf'
rom the Eleventh Circuit
holdingthat(tlsjomepromises,agreements,orunderstandingsdonotneedtobedisclosed,
because they are too am biguous,ortoo loose orare oftoo m arginala benefitto the w itness to
count.''UnitedStatesv.Curtis,380F.3d 1311,1316n.7(11thCir.2005),modifiedonother
20Itisirrelevantwhethertheofferoragreem entem anatesfrom thepoliceortheProsecutor. See e.c.,Boone,54l
F.2dat450-51Ct-f'
hepolicearealsopartoftheprosecution,andthetaintonthetrailisnolessifthey,ratherthanthe
State'sAtlorney,were guiltyofthenondisclosure'');UnitedStatesv.Sutton,542 F.2d 1239,1241n.
2 (4thCir.
l976)CtwhatFBIagent)knew mustbeimputedtotheprosecutor'').
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 52 of 64 Pageid#:
2505
crounds,400F.3d 1334 (11thCir.2005)(citingTarverv.Hooper,169F.3d710,717(11thCir.
1999:.
A lthough,the Eleventh Circuit's decision isnotbinding on this Court,the Courtnotes
that(1)thedecisionin Curtisisdistinguishablefrom Hash'scaseonitsfactsand(2)thatthe
Eleventh Circuitendorsed Boone'sreasoning intheCurtisdecision. First,in Curtis,the
Govem m entdisclosed the conversation betw een the State and thew itness regarding w hetherthe
w itnesswould be eligible forfavorabletreatm ent. Furtherm ore,aherm aking the disclosureto
defense counselthe Statem etwith thecooperating witnessandm adeitexplicitthattherewasno
prom ise on the partofthe G overnm entto file a substantialassistance m otion. Finally,attrialthe
cooperating w itnesstestified truthfully thatalthough no prom ise had been m ade,the w itness
hoped the Governm entw ould assisthim athissentencing. Curtis,380 F.3d at 1313. ln the
presentcase,conversations betw een Carterand the State were notdisclosed to defense counsel,
therew asno supplem entalm eeting between the State and Carterto confirm thatno prom iseshad
beenm ade,and tinally,attrialCarterlied whenhestated thathedidnotexpectanything in
exchangeforhistestim ony becausebased on thelettershe sentJudgeM ichaelitwasclearhe
did. Second,in Curtis the Eleventh Circuitagreed w ith theFourth Circuit's statem entin Boone
thatfstentativenessm ay increase ...relevancy''ofan agreementforfavorabletreatm ent.ld.at
1316(quotingBoone,541F.2dat451).
M oreover,Boone is strikingly sim ilarto Hash'scase. In Boone,the habeaspetitioner
had been convicted ofarm ed robbery and statutory robbery prim arily on the basisoftestim ony
from his alleged accom plice who had becom e a cooperating w itnessforthe State. 541F.2d at
449. The Fourth Circuitfound a G ialio violation w here a police ofscer's statem entto the
cooperating w itness,priorto trial,thattdhe would use his influence w ith the Com m onw ealth
52
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 53 of 64 Pageid#:
2506
Attomeyinordertoseethat(thewitness)wouldnotbeprosecuted''wasnotdisclosed.Id.at
449. Atthe habeas evidentiary hearing thepolice officertestitied thathe had em phasized to the
w itnessthatdtthisw as a lim ited prom ise,and thatwhile he w ould use his intluence w ith the
CommonwealthAttorney,thereiwasanelementofriskhere'...because(thepoliceofficerj
could notcontrolthe actionsofothers.'' ld.at449 n.1.
Defense counselw assuspicious thata prom ise in exchange forthe w itness'stestim ony
m usthave been m ade,and although defense counselw as successfulin eliciting on crossexam ination thatthe w itness kthad notbeen arrested orprosecuted in colm ection w ith thisoffense
.. .
counselgotnow here in hiseffortto uncoverthe prosecutorialbargain.'' ld.at449. In closing
argum ent,the Prosecutorbolstered thewitness'stestimony by stating Ciatnotim eisanybody
m ore aptto tellthe truth than w hen they are saying som ething thatactually hurts ....A nd take
thattestandapplyitto gthewitness),forinstance,whohasfreelyadmittedparticipatingina
felony...,'' ld.at450.
LiketheBoonecase,thepresentcaseconcernsaprom ise,now conceded by the
Respondent,by lnvestigatorJenkinsto talk to the U .S.A ttorney on behalfofCarterregarding his
federalsentence. Furtherm ore,like Boone,the Com m onwea1th failed to disclose the prom ise to
H ash's trialcounsel. On directexam ination Cartertestified thathe w asnotexpecting anything
in exchange forhis testim ony and although H ash'strialcounselattem pted through crossexam ination to force Carterto adm itto w hatInvestigatorJenkinshad prom ised him ,he was
unable to getsuch an adm ission.In fact,Carterlied stating $çldon'tknow ifthe state appliesto
the fed''when asked ifhecould geta substantialassistance motion forhistestim ony in Hash's
case.(TrialTr.at737).M oreover,whencross-examinedabouthismotivation fortestifying
Carterstated itwasdtsom ewhat''forthe purpose ofreducing hissentence,butthatitw asalso
53
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 54 of 64 Pageid#:
2507
becauseisthatcould have been my grandm other,yourgrandm otherorsomebody else. lwould
feelsomebodyelsewoulddothesamethingforme.''(ld.).Finally,inhisclosingargumentthe
Com m onw ealth'sA ttorney bolstered Carter's testim ony by stating:
You know ,PaulCarter,they wantto suggestto you thatsom ehow ,
really bothersom e here,thatsom ehow his sentencing in federal
court,federalcourt,is connected to w hat'sgoing on up here. This
isastate court.That'stotally different.Differentprosecutors,
differentlaws,differentjudges,everythingisdifferent,andldon't
know whatelseto tellyou.There'sno dealwith M r.Carter.He
testitied to thatand asto w hen hissentencing took place in
Charlottesville,there'sno evidencethatwassomehow purchased
orw hateverby the Com m onw ealth here,none whatsoever. Those
are totally differentissues.
(J-i at1339).Commonwealth'sAttorneyClosenow admitsthisstatementwasmisleading.
(CloseDep.Tr.at119-120).
ln Boone,the Fourth Circuitfound a G iclio violation tddespite ...the tentativenessofthe
prom ise.''541F.2d at451.lmportantly,theFourthCircuitstated thatCiratherthan weakening
the signitk ance forcredibilitypurposesofan agreementoffavorabletreatm ent,tentativeness
mayincreaseitsrelevancy.''1.
pa.Thecourtfurtherexplainedthattdapromisetorecommend
leniency(withoutassuranceofit)maybeinterpretedbythepromiseeascontingentuponthe
qualityoftheevidenceproduced gand)themoreuncertaintheagreement,thegreaterthe
incentive to m ake thetestim ony pleasing to the prom isor.'' Id. Here,the prom ise w as a sim ilarly
tentativeprom ise as the prom ise in Boone. InvestigatorJenkinshad notyetprovided the
assistance Carterexpected. Thus,lnvestigatorJenkins'offerto assistCarterw ith his federal
sentence m ay have appeared to be contingenton the strength of Carter's testim ony atHash's
trial,thereby increasing Carter'sm otivation to testify falsely.
Respondentalso attem ptsto distinguish the presentcase from Boone w ith regard to the
prejudiceanalysisbyarguingthatCarter'stestimonywasnotthekeyevidenceagainstHashand
54
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 55 of 64 Pageid#:
2508
correspondinglytheCommonwealth'scaseagainstHashwasnotweak.(Dkt.No.48,at!!5457).Specifically,RespondentassertsthatHashignorestheeffectofW eakley'stestimony,(Dkt.
No.48,at!54),andthatHashhasfailedtoexplainhow Carterknew thedetailsofthecrime
unlessHashtoldhim,(Dkt.No.48,at!57).TheCourtisnotconvinced.First,asdetailedin
Section lI1.A ,W eakley has recanted his testim ony and thatrecantation isreliable because itis
corroborated by independentevidence. Second,Com m onw ealth'sA ttonzey Close hasadm itted
thatH ash w astransferred to the A lbem arle-charlottesville RegionalJailto be putin contactw ith
Carter,a known prison inform ant. Furtherm ore,the evidence indicatesthatthere w ere
inconsistenciesbetween Carter's statem entand the evidence. Specifically,Carter stated to
lnvestigatorJenkinsthatheandHashwereinthesnmecellblockforseveraldays,(JenkinsDep.
Tr.at110),wheninfactHashwasonlyattheAlbemarle-charlottesvilleRegionalJailfortwo
nightsand spentonlythesecondnightinacellblockwithCarter,(ShiflettAff.at!!5,11).
Carteralso stated thatHash said he shotScroggins three tim es,butthe crim e scene evidence
indicatedScrogginshadbeenshotfourtimes.(JenkinsDep.Tr.at110).CarterstatedthatHash
had told him theyhad taken itemsfrom Scroggins'homeand had also taken hervehicle;
however,thecrimesceneevidenceindicatednothinghadbeentakenfrom thehome.(J#=.at11011).Finally,CarterstatedHash saidthati'Twootherdudesthatwaswithhim whentheydidthe
murderhavegavehim up onvideotape,''whichwasnottrue.(Id.at111).29 Indeed,Investigator
Jerlkinshasnow adm itted thattçm ore should have been done''to verify C arter'sstory and that(Cat
thispointin m y careerlw ould do itdifferently,''butthatSiatthe tim e 1w asdoing the bestI
could''whilettlivingunderthedailythumbofthesheriff.''(ld.at130-31).
29The courtalso notesthatInvestigatorsJenkinsand M ack did notreview the notebook from w hich Carterread the
detailsofHash'sconfession.(JerlkinsDep.Tr.at112,124-25).Furthermore,the lnvestigatorsdid notinterview
anyotherinmatesinCarter'scellblocktoconfirm CarterandHashactuallyspoke.(ld.at123).Finally,Carter,
unlikeW eakleyand Shelton,wasnotpolygraphed.(Id.at123;Mack Dep.Tr.at101).
55
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 56 of 64 Pageid#:
2509
Therefore,this Courtconcludes,like the Fourth Circuit,thatCarter'stestim ony coupled
w ith the Com m onw ealth'sA ttorney'sclosing argum entûtconstitutesfalse evidence ofw hich the
prosecutorknew orshould haveknown''becauseastheFourth Circuitreasoned ittheprosecutor
madestatementswhichwereclearlyintendedtogivetheimpressionthat(thewitness)knew
nothing aboutpossible lenienttreatm ent''and in the presentcase,thatsuch lenienttreatm ent
could notoccurbecause the system sw ere entirely separate. Boone,541 F.2d at450.
W ith regard to m ateriality,the Fourth Circuithas stated thata courtûtm ustexam ine both
theimportanceofthe(witnessl'stestimony,whichwouldbeaffectedbyhiscredibility,andthe
weightofthe independentevidence ofguilt.'' Id.at451.In Boone,the Fourth Circuit
considered the weakness ofthe physicalevidence againstthe im portance ofthe three witness's
testim ony,ofw hich the cooperating witness's testim ony w as the m ostim portant. 1d.at452.
Ultimately,theFourthCircuitconcludedthatalthoughdtltlhetaskofdeterminingwhetherthere
isatreasonable likelihood'thatevidenceofthepromise offavorabletreatm ent...would have
affectedthejudgmentofthejuryisnotan easyone,''especially(tin acasesuch asthiswhere
internalconflictsand inherentim probability in alm ostevery w itness'testim ony suggeststhe
possibilityofperjury,''whencombinedwiththeProsecutor'sstatementdkwhichbuttressedgthe
primarywitness'sqcredibility,thereisareasonablelikelihoodthatthejurywouldhavereacheda
differentresult.'' ld.at453.
Sim ilarly,this Courtw eighs the effectofCarter's false testim ony thatw asbolstered by
Com m onwealth'sA ttorney Close'sfalse statem entthatno prom ise had been m ade and his
overallm isleading suggestion thatno such prom ise could in factbe m ade because the system s
w ere entirely separate,againstthe com plete lack ofphysicalevidence connecting H ash to the
crim e and the contradictory testim ony ofthe otherw itnesses. A ccordingly,the Courtfindsthat
56
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 57 of 64 Pageid#:
2510
inHash'scasetherewasareasonablelikelihoodthatthejurywouldhavereachedadifferent
resultwithoutthe false testim ony. H ash hasproven Com m onw ealth's Attorney Close'sfailure
to disclose the agreem entand subsequentbolstering ofCarter'sfalse testim ony violated Hash's
due process rightsunder Giglio and N apue.
Claim IIB:M isconductby CulpeperSherW 'sO-f/iceandtheProsecutor'sOm ce
Hash cites a series offactsevidencing m isconducton the partofthe Culpeper's Sheriffs
Departm entand theProsecutor'sOfficein violation ofhisrightto dueprocess.3o In supportof
thisargumentHash statesa Esconviction cannotbebroughtaboutby methodsthatoffend $a sense
ofjustice.'''Rochinv.California,342U.S.165,173-74(1952).SeealsoUnitedStatesv.
Goodwin,674F.Supp.1211,1217(E.D.Va.1987)(tttheremaybesomecircumstancesinwhich
governmentconductisso offensivethata conviction should besetasideon dueprocess
grounds'')aff'd,854F.2d33(4th Cir.1988).Respondentcounterswithaproceduralargument
thatthe Courtcannotconsiderthisevidence because pursuantto Pinholster,thisCourt'sreview
islim itedto therecordbeforethestatehabeascourtand much ofthisevidencehascometo light
onlyduringthecurrentfederalproceedings.(Dkt.No.45,at!93).However,havingfoundthat
Hash has m ade a successfulshowing ofactualinnocence,this Courtm ay consideral1of
Petitioner'sevidence and need notaddress Pinholster'spurported exception.
ConsideringthecavalcadeofevidencethatHash hascom eforward with dem onstrating
police and prosecutorialm isconduct,w hich standslargely uncontested by R espondent,this Court
findsthatH ash hasm ade a sufficientshow ing ofm isconductto tind the investigation violated
hisdue processrightsand warrantshabeasrelief. Hash'sevidence is sum m arized asfollows.
30 Theallegationsdiscussed in Section IV .B.1alsoprovideevidenceofm isconductandareincluded in Petitioner's
evidenceofapattel
'nofmisconduct.(Dkt.No.49 at25).TheCourtconsidersthem asfurtherevidenceofan
overallpatternofm isconductbutdoesnotspecitk ally discussthem again inthissection.
57
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 58 of 64 Pageid#:
2511
First,Hash hasproducedevidencethat(1)letterswrittenbyCartertolnvestigators
JenkinsandMackand(2)aresponsefrom lnvestigatorJenkinstooneofCarter'sletterswerenot
disclosed to H ash'strialcounsel. During depositionstaken forthe state habeasproeeedings,
Investigator Jenkinstestified thathe received tw o orthree lettersfrom Carterand that
lnvestigatorMack likelyreceivedoneortwolettersfrom Carter.(JenkinsStateHabeasDep.Tr.
at65-66).InvestigatorJenkinstestitiedfurtherthathebelievedhewroteCarteraletterbutcould
notrecallifthe letter was sent. (Id.at67-68).
31
Second,the resultsofthe polygraph exnm inationsgiven to W eakley and Shelton were
neverproducedto Hash'strialcounsel. Asdescribed above,W eakley failed hispolygraph
exam ination,show ing deception to questions aboutwhetherHash evertold W eakley he shot
ScrogginsandwhetherW eakleywaspresentattheScrogginsmurder.(W eakleyPolygraphat
2).Shelton'spolygraphresultsalsorevealthatsheliedinhertestimonyimplicatingHash.
Specitically,Shelton gavedeceptiveanswerswhen asked dsArethestatementsyou gavethe
police lastnightregarding M ike and Jason's involvem entin Thelm a Scroggins'death,tnze?''and
whenaskedtsDidyouhearM ikeandJasonplantotortureandkillThelmaScroggins?''(Shelton
Polygraphat5-6).Furthermore,AgentCanvile,acertifiedpolygraphexaminer,reviewedthe
resultsand testitied thattdanybody thatfailed the exam ination to this extentw ouldn'tbe a very
crediblewitnessin myopinion.''tcarwileDep.Tr.at55).Inresponse,theRespondentargues
thatthe resultsw ere transm itted to the Com m onwealth'sA ttorney w ho w ould haveplaced them
3'Ahertrialthe letterw asdiscovered in Carter'sfederalfilebecauseCarterforwardedthe letterto JudgeM ichael.
(Jenkins3/12/01LettertoCarter).Furthermore,Commonwealth'sAttorneyClosehasnow admitted,aspartofthe
federalproceedings,thattheselettersoughttohavebeendisclosed.WhenaskedifanSûofferg)tospeaktothefederal
prosecutorandthenmakingthecalltotheprosecutor...lrose)tothelevelofsomtthingthatshouldbedisclosedto
thedefense''Com m onwealth'sAttorneyCloserepliedttYeah,lthink so,''thereby adm itting thatdisclosureofthe
lettersfrom Cartertothelnvestigatorsand lnvestigatorJenkins'responseto Cartershouldhavebeen disclosedto
Hash'strialcounsel.
58
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 59 of 64 Pageid#:
2512
inhistileandidgslincetheCommonwealth'sAttorneymaintainedan dopenfile'policy,the
polygraphsresultswereavailabletodefensecounsellongbeforetrial.''(Dkt.No.51at!47).
Commonwealth'sAttorney Closeadmittedduringhisdepositionthattiifgresultsofapolygraph
areqinmyfile,lwouldprovideit.''(CloseDep.Tr.at26).Hefurthertestitiedthatidif,you
know ,ifIhad a w itnessthatfailed apolygraph,lwould think thatthatw ould be exculpatory and
Iwouldrevealthat,whetheritwasverbalornot.''(CloseDep.Tr.at30).However,Hash'strial
counseldid nothave eitherW eakley or Shelton'spolygraph results.
Third,the Prosecution concealed negotiationsw ith W eakley regarding a plea agreem ent
in exchange forhistestim ony.32 AtHash'strial,W eakley, like Carter,testified thatthere w as no
dealrelatingtohistestim ony and thathedid notexpectany benefitasaresultofhistestimony.
Specifically,the follow ing exchange took place:
Q:Okay.Now,haveyoureceivedanypromisesforyour
testim ony today?
A ' N o sir
Q:Doyouhaveanyexpectationofanythinghappening?
A : N o,sir.
Q:You'vetalkedtoyourattorneyaboutthis,correct?
A : Yes.
Q:DidlnvestigatorJenkinsorInvestigatorM ack,didthey
prom ise you anything?
A : N o.
32Theam ended com plaintappearsto includetheseallegationsinClaim llA . (Dkt.No.6at!! 131-36).However,
in Hash'sM em orandum ofLaw in Opposition and Response to Respondent'sThird M otion to D ism issand Rule 5
Answer,(Dkt.No.49at26),theclaimsarediscussedsubstantivelyaspartofClaim llB.TheCoul
'tconsidersthese
allegationsaspartofClaim IIB.
59
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 60 of 64 Pageid#:
2513
(TrialTr.at602).Furthermore,duringclosingargumenttheCommonwealth'sAttonwystated
thatW eakleyhadnotbeenpromisedanythingforhistestimony.(LIL at1281)(û$Now,defense
counselwillprobablytellyou,(W eakley,SheltonandCarterhavelgota11-youknow,they've
gotthe expectation ofprom isesand they think al1kinds ofthings are going to happen to them .
W ell,you've heard whatthey said. W hatelse can they do excepttellyou,ldon'thave an
expectationofanythinghappening.There'snopromisesbeenmadetome.'').However,
negotiationswith W eakley cameto lightin a reportproduced in 2011by the Virginia State
Police. The June 15,2000,reportindicates thattiEric W eakley'sattorney hasbeen in negotiation
w ith the Com m onw ealth's Attorney to m ake a dealwhereby W eakley w ould testify againstH ash
andKloby.''(Carwile6/15/00Report).Thepleaagreementnegotiationsarecorroboratedbythe
factthatalthough W eakley wasinitiallycharged with capitalmurder,thepreliminary hearing on
thatcharge w as continued approxim ately five tim es untilW eakley testified againstboth H ash
and K loby.33 On February 20,2001,afterH ash'sconviction on February 9, 2001,W eakley's
charge wasam ended from capitalm urderto second degreemurder.Ultim ately,W eakley entered
into a plea agreem ent,pursuantto which he w as sentenced to six yearsand eightm onths
imprisonment.(W eakley SentencingH.Tr.at27).
Fourth,theCulpeperinvestigatorsimperm issibly coached W eakley regardinghow to
answertheirquestionsand m ay have fed W eakley inform ation aboutthe crim e. A s discussed
above,W eakley hasnow recanted al1priorstatem entsthatim plicate H ash in the m urderof
Scroggins,and hisrecantation is corroborated by statem ents by lnvestigatorJenkins. Finally,
InvestigatorJenkinsand Com monwealth'sAttorney Close,who previously m aintained thatall
portionsoftheinterviewsofW eakleywererecorded,now admitthatthisisnottrue. (Jenkins
33Hash subm itted copiesofw eakley'scontinuanceordersindicating w eakley'sprelim inary hearingwascontinued
on 5/17/00,5/25/00,6/20/00,8/31/00,and 9/l9/00.
60
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 61 of 64 Pageid#:
2514
Dep.Tr.at74).
,(CloseDep.Tr.at68).Thisissignificantbecausetheinterview thatdirectly
preceded W eakley's firstim plication ofHash wasnotrecorded. Specifically,in his firstthree
interviewsW eakleydeniedinvolvementintheScroggins'murder.(CaveDep.Tr.at21,25).
Then,lnvestigatorBruceCave(tçlnvestigatorCave'')hadanunrecordedconversationwith
W eakley and following thatunrecorded conversation W eakley changedhisstoryand stated he
waspresentwhenHashandKlobymurderedScroggins.tLd= at20-25).
Fifth,in 1999,lnvestigatorCartersaw a .22 W inchesterrifle atthe residence w here Scott
lived atthetim e ofScroggins'm urder. H ow ever,InvestigatorCarterfailed to take custody of
the rifle and testit,despite the factthatthe .22 W inchesterrifle m atched the caliberbullet
recovered atthe crim e scene. lndicative ofthe failingsofthis investigation,lnvestigatorJenkins
hasrecently stated thatdsthe Sheriff s Departm entinvestigation w as nothandled properly,''and,
asaresult,hehasdsveryseriousconcernsabouttheconvictionofMikeHash.''(JerlkinsAff.at!
6).
The cum ulative effectofthism isconductviolated Hash's rightto due process. W hile
Petitionerdoesnotdistinguish between prosecutorialand policemisconduct,asslightly different
standards apply to each,this Courtm ust.A l1buttw o ofH ash's allegations- thatlnvestigators
Jenkinsand M ack im properly coached W eakley during his interviews and thatInvestigator
Carterfailed to take custody ofand testthe .22 W inchesterritle - can be viewed asprosecutorial
m isconduct.
A sregardsthe allegationsofprosecutorialm isconduct,the Courtasks ttdw hetherthe
(misconduct)soinfectedthetrialwithunfainwssastomaketheresultingconvictionadenialof
dueprocess.'Dardenv.W ainwright,477U.S.168,181,106S.Ct.2464,91L.Ed.2d 144 (1986)
(internalquotationsomitted).Toprovereversibleerror,thedefendantmustshow (1)ithatthe
61
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 62 of 64 Pageid#:
2515
prosecutor'sremarksorconductwereimproper'and(2)ithatsuch remarksorconduct
prejudiciallyaffectedhissubstantialrightssoastodeprivehim ofafairtrial.'United Statesv.
Scheetz,293F.3d 175,185(4thCir.2002).'5U.S.v.Caro,597F.3d608,624-25(4th Cir.2010).
H ere the Prosecutor'sO ffice engaged in a series ofliesand failuresto disclose exculpatory
evidence to H ash'stria1counsel.34 w ithoutaccessto this inform ation H ash w asdenied the
opportunity to effectively cross-exam inethe State'sw itnessesagainsthim ,in particulartheir
m otivation to falsify theirtestim ony.
A sregardsthe allegations ofpolice m isconduct,the Courtlooksto see whetherthe
conductrosetothelevelofûsoutrageousmisconduct.''U.S.v.Dyess,478F.3d 224,235(4thCir.
2007).35 Here,theconductoflnvestigatorsJenkinsand W eakley, whocoachedW eakley's
answersregarding W eakley'sknow ledge ofcrim e scene details,so asto m ake his statem ent
m ore reliable,risesto the levelofoutrageousm isconductbecause the actsw ere intentionaland
notmerelynegligent.Akinsv.Epperlv,588F.3d 1178,1183(8thCir.2009)(isconductintended
toinjurewillgenerallyrisetotheconscience-shockinglevel,butnegligentconductfalls(beneath
thethresholdofconstitutionaldueprocess.''')(quotingLewis,523U.S.at849).lndeed,the
CourtnotesthattheparallelsbetweenthiscaseandNickersonv.Roe,260F.Supp.2d 875(N.D.
Cal.2003)abrocatedbvLeev.Lampert,610F.3d 1125(9thCir.2010),arestriking.ln
N ickerson,noting thatthe Prosecution's case wastipotentially the productofim properpolice
conduct,''thedistrictcourtawardedhabeasrelief,concludingthatCttheresultingconviction (was)
34Som eoftheevidencethattheProsecutorfailedtodisclosem ay giverisetoaBradv v. M aryland,373U .S.83
(1963),violation,buttheCourtneednotaddressthatbecauseasndingofprejudicialprosecutorialmisconductis
sufficientto warranthabeasrelief.
35çtEIjn adueprocesschallengeto executiveaction,thethresholdquestioniswhetherthebehaviorofthe
governmentaloffk erisso egregious,so outrageous,thatitmay fairly besaid toshock thecontem porary
conscience.''CountvofSacramentov.Lewis,523U.S.833,847n.8(1998).
62
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 63 of 64 Pageid#:
2516
adenialofdueprocess.''Id.at918.TheNickersonpoliceinvestigationwasmarkedby(1)
pressuringwitnessesto identifythepetitionerastheperpetrator;(2)itggiving)...cuesand
gaskinglleadingquestions''inwitnessinterviews;(3)suppressionofexculpatoryevidence;and
(4)lossordestructionofnotesrelatingtocommunicationswithkeywitnesses.1d.at914-18.
LikeNickerson,Hashhaspresentedevidencethat(1)W eakley'sstatementwastheresultof
coaching;(2)exculpatoryevidenceintheform offailedpolygraphexaminationswerenot
disclosedtotrialcounsel;and(3)communicationsbetweenthepoliceandCarterhavebeenlost
and were notdisclosed.
Conversely,the Courtis notconvinced thatlnvestigator Carter's failure to take custody
ofthe .22 W inchesterrifle and have ittested forcom parison w ith the bullets recovered atthe
crime scene,whilecertainly asigniticantoversight,risesto thelevelofiéoutrageous
misconduct,''astherewasno evidencetoindicatesom ething morethan negligenceon thepartof
theofficer.Akins,588F.3dat1184(itAnofticer'snegligentfailuretoinvestigate
inconsistenciesorotherleadsisinsufticienttoestablishconscience-shockingmisconduct.'').
A ccordingly,the CourtgrantsH ash'srequestforhabeas reliefon Claim l1B because
Hash hascome forward with sufficientevidence,regardingthem mm erin which thepoliceand
Prosecution handled hiscase,to show thathisconviction was(sbroughtaboutby methodsthat
offendiasenseofjustice.'''Rochin,342U.S.at173-74.
V . C onclusion
Notwithstandingthehighly deferentialAEDPA stmzdard,the CourttindsthatHash is
entitledtohabeascorpusreliefunder28U.S.C.j2254.Havingreviewedthevoluminousrecord
inthiscase,theCourtisdisturbedbythemiscaniageofjusticethatoccurredinthiscaseand
findsthatHash'strialisanexnmpleofanGûtextrememalfunctionl)inthestatecriminaljustice
63
Case 7:10-cv-00161-JCT -RSB Document 58 Filed 02/28/12 Page 64 of 64 Pageid#:
2517
systemgl.'''Hanington,131S.Ct.at786(quotingJacksonv.Virainia,443U.S.307,332n.5
(1979)).Fortheforegoingreasons,theCourtGRANTSHash'spetitionforawritofhabeas
corpusw ith respectto each ofhisfourclaim s. Petitioner'sconviction and sentence are
VACATED.Respondentshalleitherretry Petitionerwithin areasonabletim e,nottoexceed six
(6)months,orreleasehim.Anappropriateordershallissue.
ENTER:This7.V&=
dayofFebruary, 2012.
SeniorU nited StatesD istrictJudg
64