D'AMBROSIO v. Bagley
656 F.3d 379
6th Cir.2011Background
- Joe D'Ambrosio was Ohio death-row inmate indicted in 1988 on multiple counts of aggravated murder, kidnapping, and related charges and convicted by a three-judge panel; appellate and Ohio courts upheld the conviction.
- In 2001 D'Ambrosio filed a federal habeas petition; after an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted a conditional writ for Brady violations, requiring the state to set aside convictions or retry within 180 days.
- The district court’s 2006-2008 orders affirmed the conditional writ; the state did not complete a retrial within 180 days and instead pursued retrial proceedings.
- In 2009 the district court granted an enlargement of time for retrial, and subsequently, after further discovery of new evidence, issued an unconditional writ barring reprosecution.
- Espinoza, the prosecution’s key witness, died in April 2009, and the district court later found Espinoza’s death affected the case’s extraordinary circumstances.
- D'Ambrosio moved under Rule 60(b) to vacate the judgment and bar reprosecution; the district court granted the motion, barring reprosecution; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to bar reprosecution under Rule 60(b) | D'Ambrosio argues district court retained jurisdiction; state noncompliance kept jurisdiction alive. | Bagley contends jurisdiction lapsed after conditional writ compliance or vacatur. | District court had jurisdiction to bar reprosecution. |
| Whether the state complied with the conditional writ | State never truly complied with the conditional writ. | State attempted retrial and claimed partial compliance. | State never complied with the conditional writ; district court retained jurisdiction. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in barring reprosecution | Extraordinary circumstances warranted barring reprosecution. | No abuse; appropriate under extraordinary circumstances. | District court did not abuse discretion; upheld unconditional writ. |
Key Cases Cited
- Satterlee v. Wolfenbarger, 453 F.3d 362 (6th Cir.2006) (habeas: extraordinary circumstances may bar reprosecution when state delays are prejudicial)
- Girts v. Yanai, 600 F.3d 576 (6th Cir.2010) (district court may clarify vs. amend orders; Pitchess interplay; exhaustion concerns)
- Pitchess v. Davis, 421 U.S. 482 (U.S. 1975) (exhaustion requirement; cannot use Rule 60(b) to circumvent exhaustion)
- Fisher v. Rose, 757 F.2d 789 (6th Cir.1985) (abuse of discretion where retrial timed within limits; distinguishable from current case)
- Davis v. Wake (Pitchess reference), 421 U.S. 482 (U.S. 1975) (see Pitchess; exhaustion and supervisory authority limits)
- Eddleman v. McKee, 586 F.3d 409 (6th Cir.2009) (vacatur of unconstitutional conviction terminates district court jurisdiction)