Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397

Background

Blystone was sentenced to death in 1984 after state convictions for first-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracies; his direct appeal and state post-conviction challenges were denied.
The district court granted Blystone relief on death sentence due to ineffective assistance for failing to investigate/develop mitigate evidence and records; the death sentence was remanded for resentencing.
Blystone filed a Rule 59(e) motion alleging newly discovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct to support guilt-phase claims and sought discovery/amendment to raise Brady claims.
The district court denied the Rule 59(e) motion, holding the evidence was not newly discovered.
On appeal, Blystone argues the Rule 59(e) motion should not be treated as a second or successive habeas petition and that discovery should be allowed; Commonwealth argues Rule 59(e) is a new petition or that discovery was properly denied.
The Third Circuit agrees the Rule 59(e) motion is a habeas petition for AEDPA purposes and analyzes jurisdiction and the merits of the district court’s rulings on both guilt- and penalty-phase claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Blystone’s Rule 59(e) motion is a second or successive petition under AEDPA	Rule 59(e) is not an independent second petition; it seeks discovery and potential amendment, not new habeas grounds.	Rule 59(e) advances new claims or a merits attack via new evidence; thus AEDPA constraints apply.	Rule 59(e) motion is a habeas petition; jurisdictional AEDPA limits apply.
Whether the district court properly denied Blystone’s Rule 59(e) motion as dilatory	Newly discovered evidence warrants discovery and potential amendment; denial ignores timing.	Evidence was not newly discovered; motion dilatory and futile for guilt-phase impact.	District court did not abuse discretion; evidence not newly discovered in timely sense.
Whether trial counsel’s failure to investigate/explore expert mental health mitigation was objectively unreasonable	Counsel failed to pursue available mitigating evidence (expert mental health, institutional records).	Counsel’s investigation aligned with standards given waiver of mitigation and trial strategy; evidence not reasonably expected.	State court decision was unreasonable; Strickland satisfied; relief granted for penalty phase.
Whether trial counsel’s failure to investigate lay witness mitigation was prejudicial	Inadequate investigation precluded potentially mitigating lay testimony that could affect the penalty.	Colloquy suggested Blystone waived mitigation; prejudice precluded because no further evidence would be allowed.	State court’s analysis on lay witness mitigation was unreasonable; prejudice shown; remand for resentencing.
Whether the evidence supports remand for resentencing after penalty-phase relief	Mitigating evidence could alter the balance; prejudice shown for at least one juror.	Evidence insufficient to show prejudice given waiver and strength of guilt-phase proof.	Remand for resentencing affirmed; death sentence vacated.

Key Cases Cited

Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (Rule 60(b) and AEDPA interplay; policy on treating Rule 60(b) motions as habeas petitions.)
Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 2010) (Rule 59(e) not always separate from second/successive petitions; context-dependent.)
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2007) (Precedent on prejudice when client interferes with mitigation presentation.)
Taylor v. Horn, 504 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2007) (Preview on prejudice where petitioner refused mitigating evidence.)
Thomas v. Horn, 570 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 2009) (Limits of Schriro/Taylor reasoning; not controlling where record differs.)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (Counsel’s investigation scope and use of court files in mitigation.)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (Duty to investigate mitigating evidence; standards for reasonable investigation.)
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (U.S. 1989) (Mitigating evidence relevance to culpability.)
Williams v. United States, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (ABA standards guiding investigation for mitigation; background evidence importance.)