Bruce Carneil Webster v. Charles A. Daniels
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7284
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Bruce Webster was convicted in the Northern District of Texas for kidnapping resulting in death and related offenses and sentenced to death; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
- At sentencing and on collateral review Webster presented IQ scores and expert testimony indicating intellectual disability; the government countered with lay testimony and two experts disputing adaptive-function deficits.
- Years later defense counsel obtained Social Security Administration (SSA) records (I.Q. testing and clinician impressions from 1993) that predated the crime and corroborated low I.Q. and limited adaptive functioning; some SSA records were produced only later or were reported destroyed.
- The Fifth Circuit denied authorization for a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, concluding § 2255(h)(1) could not be satisfied because the new evidence did not show innocence of the underlying offense.
- Webster filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of his confinement, invoking the § 2255(e) “savings clause” as the remedy-by-motion was allegedly inadequate to test the legality of his detention given Atkins/Hall prohibiting execution of the intellectually disabled.
- The Seventh Circuit (en banc) held that the savings clause can, in rare circumstances, permit a § 2241 petition based on previously existing but newly uncovered evidence showing categorical Eighth Amendment ineligibility for death; remanded for an evidentiary hearing (diligence and merits).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Webster) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2255(e) (“savings clause”) permits a § 2241 petition to present newly discovered factual evidence that a petitioner is categorically ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins/Hall | Webster: § 2255 was inadequate because AEDPA bars a successive § 2255 and newly discovered SSA records predate trial and show intellectual disability making him ineligible for death | Government: Savings clause applies narrowly; § 2255 and AEDPA provide the exclusive collateral route; new evidence cannot be used to bypass § 2255(h) limits | Held: Savings clause can apply in rare cases where (1) new evidence existed before trial, (2) was previously unavailable despite diligence, and (3) shows constitutional ineligibility for death; remanded for further proceedings |
| Standard and burden at threshold and merits for proceeding under § 2241 | Webster: Must be allowed to prove entitlement to a hearing based on clear showing of newly discovered pretrial evidence | Government: Threshold should not be met; § 2255(h) governs and was not satisfied | Held: At threshold petitioner must proffer clear and convincing evidence sufficient to warrant a hearing (analogous to § 2255(h)(1) gateway); at the merits the burden is preponderance to prove intellectual disability under Atkins/Hall |
| Whether the case should be litigated in Indiana (custodian venue) or transferred | Webster: Habeas must be filed where he is confined; SSA records and custody are in Terre Haute so Indiana is proper | Government: Practical concerns, comity, and finality favor sentencing-court forum (N.D. Tex.) | Held: Venue in Southern District of Indiana is proper (custodian Warden Daniels); case must proceed in Indiana absent consent to transfer |
| Whether the newly discovered SSA records qualify as ‘‘newly discovered’’ and whether defense was diligent | Webster: Records were not available to prior counsel due to SSA missteps; counsel later obtained them only by chance | Government: Defense had knowledge of SSA contact and could have obtained records earlier; not truly new | Held: Facts disputed; district court must hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve diligence and provenance before reaching merits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205 (1952) (establishing § 2255 as the primary federal post-conviction remedy)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled persons)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (clarified assessment of IQ and required consideration of adaptive functioning in Atkins claims)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (constitutively barred execution of offenders who were under 18 at the time of their crimes)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (habeas petition must be filed in district of custodian)
- In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998) (savings clause permits § 2241 where § 2255 would be inadequate to implement an intervening change in law)
- Garza v. Lappin, 253 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2001) (savings clause application where petitioner relied on an international commission finding)
- United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 1998) (direct appeal affirming conviction and death sentence)
- In re Webster, 605 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2010) (denying permission to file successive § 2255 motion)