Caudill v. Conover
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66836
E.D. Ky.2012Background
- Caudill, a death-sentenced inmate, filed a 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas petition seeking relief; case referred for non-dispositive pre-trial matters and hearings.
- Petitioner moves for discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and appointment of an independent blood-stain expert to support multiple claims.
- Claims include prosecutorial misconduct, Brady violations, and multiple claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (claims 8–17).
- Caudill seeks discovery of exculpatory materials and depositions of trial counsel and a Kentucky Crime Lab employee (Edward Taylor).
- State court proceedings culminated in Kentucky Supreme Court affirming convictions and death sentence; federal review is governed by AEDPA §2254(d) with Pinholster standards limiting new evidence.
- Magistrate Judge denied the discovery and evidentiary relief motions without prejudice, pending §2254(d) review on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pinholster bars discovery and new-evidence under §2254(d) review. | Caudill argues Pinholster does not bar discovery or preclude new evidence. | Respondent contends Pinholster applies to discovery and any new evidence, making such development futile. | Pinholster applies; discovery and new-evidence are denied without prejudice. |
| Whether §2254(d)(2) unreasonable-determination-of-facts review allows new evidence via discovery. | Caudill argues state-court findings were unreasonable and allow additional factual development. | Respondent maintains Pinholster limits consideration of new evidence under §2254(d). | New evidence not considered unless not barred by Pinholster; de novo evidence deferred. |
| Whether Kentucky post-conviction procedures permit adequate factual development. | Caudill asserts Kentucky procedures are inadequate for discovery and development of factual records. | Respondent argues Kentucky procedures provide rudimentary discovery and comply with federal due process. | Kentucky procedures are adequate; Pinholster applies and discovery is denied pending merits review. |
| Whether discovery could impact §2254(d) de novo review if claims survive initial review. | Caudill contends discovery could yield evidence relevant to de novo review. | Respondent argues evidence obtained via discovery would not be considered unless §2254(d) is overcome. | Discovery may be reconsidered only if §2254(d) review indicates claims are not barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1973) (evidentiary hearings when state findings are inadequate, pre-AEDPA framework)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (minimum post-conviction procedures for competency appeals; due process considerations)
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (due process and minimum procedures for competency challenges in capital cases)
- Wellons v. Hall, 558 U.S. 220 (2010) (distinguishes procedural adequacy; supports limits on evidentiary development under AEDPA)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (restricts federal review to state-court record for §2254(d)(1) and bars new evidence in that review)