Cowan v. Stovall
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14681
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Cowan was charged in Michigan state court based on drugs found in a house she was staying in, which she did not own.
- Police found 714 grams cocaine, 800 grams cocaine, marijuana, scales, and firearms in the house during a raid after a controlled buy.
- Her defense lawyer Perlman, who was addicted to cocaine during representation, did not interview or call any of the other house occupants as witnesses.
- Cowan was convicted on all counts and sentenced to multiple years; she began serving the sentence in 2003.
- She later filed a pro se federal habeas petition with various claims, including ineffective assistance for failing to interview witnesses; the district court deemed the failure untimely, and the court of appeals remanded on timeliness but otherwise affirmed.
- The majority remanded to address timeliness/relationship-back and stated the claim may be exhausted via state relief but unexhausted at the time of federal review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeliness and relation-back of failure-to-interview claim | Cowan contends the claim relates back and should be heard | Warden argues the claim was not timely and unexhausted | Remand to decide relation-back applicability; timeliness issue remains for district court |
| exhaustion and potential stay/abeyance for unexhausted claim | Cowan seeks stay and abeyance to exhaust in state court | State argues unexhausted; no stay unless proper showing | Remand to district court to decide whether to stay and abey or dismiss without prejudice; allowing state-court exhaustion |
| whether additional exculpatory evidence from Bell trial warrants relief | Bell evidence could exonerate Cowan | Bell evidence does not show she was unaware or that record would change result | Not granted; claims require exhaustion and do not establish clear error for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005) (relation back of new claims under habeas statutes)
- Mandacina v. United States, 328 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2003) (relation-back of amended petition sharing common core of operative facts)
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (stay and abeyance when petition is mixed with exhausted and unexhausted claims)
- Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2009) (stay-and-abeyance approach for unexhausted claims in habeas petitions)
- Maples v. Stegall, 340 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2003) (timing and standard for de novo review of habeas-denial orders)