David Munchinski v. Harry Wilson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19044
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Munchinski was convicted in 1987 of two counts each of first- and second-degree homicide for Bear Rocks murders; prosecutors later withheld exculpatory evidence, including multiple Brady items.
- Bowen’s inconsistent statements and later recantation, plus undisclosed Brady materials (Goodwin/Powell, Bates, Mangiacarne/Carbone, etc.), formed the core Brady-and-misconduct claims troubling the prosecution's case.
- PCRA I court found Brady violations but limited relief; Bowen testified under immunity, and some prosecution files were not disclosed to the court.
- PCRA III court ultimately granted relief in 2004, finding serious prosecutorial misconduct and material withheld evidence; the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed in 2005, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur in 2007.
- Munchinski filed a second/third round of post-conviction and federal habeas petitions; the federal district court granted relief under AEDPA, concluding the state court unreasonably applied Brady and tolling issues, and ordered relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
- Commonwealth appeals three points: (1) equitable tolling of AEDPA’s 1-year clock for Group 3 Brady claims, (2) procedural-default excused by fundamental miscarriage of justice, (3) actual-innocence gateway showing under § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii); the Third Circuit ultimately affirms relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Group 3 claims are timely under AEDPA. | Munchinski argues tolling and discovery warrant timely raising. | Commonwealth contends untimely under § 2244(d)(1)(D). | Group 3 timely due to equitable tolling and discovery within PCRA context. |
| Whether any procedural default occurred for Group 3 claims. | Munchinski contends no clear independent state-ground default from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling. | Commonwealth asserts procedural default based on § 9545(b)(2) timing. | No independent, adequate state-ground default; no procedural default precludes merits review. |
| Whether Munchinski can show actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence under Schlup to warrant relief. | New, reliable evidence undermines Commonwealth’s theory; gateway innocence established. | Evidence impeachment and credibility issues; insufficient reliability under Schlup. | Yes; substantial new, reliable evidence supports actual innocence gateway showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (Supreme Court 1995) (recognizes cumulative effect of suppressed evidence in materiality analysis)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court 1995) (establishes standard for actual innocence gateway evidence)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (Supreme Court 2006) (recognizes non-exhaustive avenues for actual innocence and reliable new evidence)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (Supreme Court 1991) (procedural-default doctrine and independent state grounds framework)
- Mathis v. Thaler, 616 F.3d 461 (5th Cir. 2010) (illustrates diligent pursuit in multiple forums; equitable tolling considerations)
- Gomez v. Jaimet, 350 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2003) (de novo review for factual probability in innocence determinations)
- Holmes v. Spencer, 685 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2012) (reasonableness of diligence in pursuit of rights under equitable tolling)
- Brinson v. Vaughn, 398 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2005) (extraordinary circumstances standard for tolling AEDPA)
- Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (Supreme Court 2006) (AEDPA tolling not strictly jurisdictional; case-by-case equitable tolling)