Case v. Hatch, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7742

Background

Carl Case was convicted in 1982 in New Mexico for first-degree murder and first-degree criminal sexual penetration related to Nancy Mitchell's death and was sentenced to life plus eighteen years.
Case filed a federal habeas petition; the district court conditionally granted relief on a jury-misconduct claim, which this court later vacated and remanded for dismissal.
In 2004–2006, Case pursued a state-court petition alleging Brady violations after two eyewitnesses recanted, and investigators uncovered Autry's February 3, 1982 interview not fully disclosed at trial.
DNA testing in 2005–2006 found no male DNA or sperm, and autopsy showed death by exposure with extensive injuries; no conclusive evidence exculpated Case.
The New Mexico Supreme Court rejected Case’s Brady claims, concluding the recantations were cumulative and Autry’s February 3 statement was not material.
This federal proceeding addressed whether Case could satisfy § 2244(b)(2)(B) to file a second or successive habeas petition and whether the district court properly applied AEDPA standards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Case satisfies § 2244(b)(2)(B) gates.	Case argues the February 3 Autry statement is newly discovered evidence meeting § 2244(b)(2)(B).	Hatch contends the gate-keeping requirements are not met because the evidence does not establish innocence by clear and convincing evidence tied to trial error.	No; gates not satisfied; petition denied for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the district court properly evaluated the second gate under § 2244(b)(2)(B).	Case asserts the district court correctly found Brady error and that the new evidence would undermine guilt.	Hatch argues the evidence fails the required strict standard and remains insufficient to undermine guilt.	No; the evidence does not meet the clear-and-convincing standard to show no reasonable juror would convict.
Whether the 'but for' constitutional error linkage is satisfied for Autry’s February 3 statement.	Case contends Autry's statement provides a needed alternate theory and impeachment value that could change outcome.	Hatch contends the linkage is weak and the evidence is largely cumulative and insufficient to affect verdict.	No; the linkage is not established and the evidence does not meet § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii).
Whether the proper universe of evidence for § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) includes post-trial evidence not rooted in trial error.	Case would include newly available evidence to show innocence.	Hatch limits the universe to evidence tied to trial-based constitutional error.	Yes; universe is limited to trial-based evidence plus evidence admitted or excluded due to error; post-trial non-rooted evidence is not considered.
Whether DNA and witness recantations alone would satisfy § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii).	Case posits new DNA and recantations could prove innocence if connected to trial error.	Hatch finds these forms do not alone fulfill the strict standard required for gate two.	No; these do not alter the outcome under the gate-keeping standard.

Key Cases Cited

Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 1997) (defines ‘prima facie showing’ as a threshold for second petitions)
Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1992) (innocence standard tied to new evidence for Brady claims)
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (U.S. 2006) (discusses evaluation of new evidence in innocence context)
Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1998) (AEDPA gate-keeping and finality considerations)
Ochoa v. Sirmons, 485 F.3d 538 (10th Cir. 2007) (clarifies two-gate framework for § 2244(b))
LaFevers v. Gibson, 238 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2001) (de novo review of gate-keeping determinations)
Nooner v. Hobbs, 689 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2012) (discusses scope of 2244(b) analysis and evidence universe)
In re Davis, 565 F.3d 810 (11th Cir. 2009) (original jurisdiction route for innocence claims under Herrera)
In re Davis, No. CV409-130, 2010 WL 3385081 (S.D. Ga. 2010) (district-level innocence analysis under Herrera guidance referenced)
Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1992) (see above)