Bell v. Howes
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136936
E.D. Mich.2010Background
- Bell was convicted in Detroit for first-degree premeditated murder, felony murder, kidnapping, and felony firearm, and sentenced to life without parole on the murders.
- Key witness Priscilla Matthews testified Bell was not one of the men who kidnapped Thompson, while co-defendant Mims and a single other witness implicated Bell.
- Sylvertooth testified Bell shot Thompson; he secured plea deals in exchange for testimony against Bell.
- Bell later pursued Brady claims alleging suppressed exculpatory documents from the homicide file related to Willie King/Chilly Will (William Stubblefield).
- Bell argued his initial counsel failed to interview alibi witnesses; a Ginther hearing occurred, after which the trial court found no ineffectiveness.
- Bell timely pursued petitions post-conviction; the federal court tolled the AEDPA clock based on actual innocence and newly discovered Brady material, leading to an evidentiary Brady/ineffectiveness review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation viability | Bell contends suppressed Brady material tainted trial. | State court found no suppression and that material was not exculpatory or material. | Brady violation found; suppression deemed unreasonable and material. |
| Ineffective assistance for alibi witnesses | Counsel failed to interview/call alibi witnesses Ruth Overton and Dewaylia Bogen. | Defense strategy and credibility concerns justified not calling them. | Counsel's performance unreasonable; prejudice established; Strickland satisfied as to IAC. |
| Timeliness and equitable tolling based on actual innocence | Actual innocence tolling should render the claims timely. | Timeliness governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) with no tolling absent actual innocence. | Actual innocence tolling applied; claims timely and merits reviewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty of disclosure of favorable evidence; due process violation)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (material suppression standard; reasonable probability of different outcome)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice standard for Brady material)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice; highly deferential review)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (U.S. 2006) (actual innocence gateway; totality of evidence standard)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (new reliable evidence; extraordinary case standard)
- Souter v. Jones, 395 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2005) (actual innocence tolling under § 2244(d))
- Jurado v. Burt, 337 F.3d 638 (6th Cir. 2003) (grace period for final state judgments under AEDPA)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (contrary/unreasonable application framework under AEDPA)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, U.S. (2009) (clarification of unreasonable application standard; not every error is unreasonable)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (unreasonable application of law in habeas review; factual findings)