473 F. App'x 457
6th Cir.2012Background
- Thorne was charged in 1999 with aggravated murder for hiring Wilkes to kill his ex-girlfriend Layne to gain custody of their son.
- Wilkes confessed in 1999 and testified that Thorne paid for the motel, equipment, and murder; physical evidence supported Wilkes’s version.
- Layne was killed March 31, 1999; two partial footprints were found; no other physical evidence linked Thorne directly.
- Thorne’s trial produced overwhelming corroborating evidence, including a knife, a pool of blood, and Thorne’s alibi circumstantial links.
- Thorne challenged Brady claims alleging withheld witness statements and other leads; he also argued trial counsel was ineffective for not hiring a blood-spatter expert.
- The district court and magistrate judge denied relief; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying AEDPA deferential review to Brady and Strickland claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady disclosure was material | Thorne contends withheld Hale/Rogers evidence exculpatory/material. | Thorne cannot show material exculpatory value; evidence does not undermine verdict. | No Brady violation; evidence not exculpatory or material |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s failure to hire a blood-spatter expert violated Strickland. | Strategic, reasonable decisions; no prejudice given overwhelming evidence. | No ineffective assistance under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (aggregate Brady material must undermine confidence in verdict)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficient performance plus prejudice required for ineffectiveness)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (doubly deferential AEDPA review of Strickland)
- Pinholster v. Supreme Court, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (limits on new evidence in habeas review; high deference)
- Dobbert v. Wainwright, 468 U.S. 1231 (1984) (recanted testimony should be viewed with caution)
- Apanovitch v. Houk, 466 F.3d 460 (2006) (remoteness of other suspects; not exculpatory)
- Jalowiec v. Bradshaw, 657 F.3d 293 (2011) (brady material must directly or indirectly link third party to crime)
- Jackson v. Anderson, 141 F. Supp. 2d 811 (2001) (prosecution not required to disclose all investigative leads)