Han Tak Lee v. Glunt
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Lee was convicted of first-degree murder and arson for the death of his mentally ill daughter in a Pocono Mountains cabin fire.
- He was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole after an eight-day trial in 1990.
- Post-conviction, Lee pursued PCRA relief; Lentini fire-science developments were introduced in support of after-discovered evidence.
- Pennsylvania courts denied relief, with the Superior Court rejecting the new-science evidence as impeachment only and denying a new trial.
- Lee filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; District Court denied discovery and held the new-evidence claim non-cognizable absent independent constitutional violation.
- The Third Circuit remands for discovery to test whether newly developed fire-science evidence undermines the reliability of the Commonwealth’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizability of actual innocence via new evidence | Lee argues newly discovered science proves innocence; cognizable under § 2254. | Commonwealth contends innocence claim lacks independent constitutional violation and is not cognizable. | Remanded for discovery; potential due-process claim if proven. |
| Entitlement to discovery and an evidentiary hearing | Lee is entitled to access fire-scene evidence for independent testing by an expert. | Discovery unnecessary or improperly sought; no hearing warranted. | Discovery order should be considered; evidentiary hearing may follow on remand. |
| Standard of review for federal claims | Federal claims deserve de novo review given lack of merits analysis by state courts on federal grounds. | AEDPA applies; deferential review is required when state court adjudicated on the merits. | Federal claims reviewed de novo because state courts relied only on state law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keller v. Larkins, 251 F.3d 408 (3d Cir.2001) (due-process/integrity of trial hinges on reliability of testimony)
- Bisaccia v. Attorney Gen., 623 F.2d 307 (3d Cir.1980) (prejudice vs. probative value in evaluating admissibility of expert testimony)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (U.S. 2011) (limits § 2254(d)(1) review to the record before the state court)
- Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386 (3d Cir.2010) (evidentiary-hearing standard under § 2254(e)(2))
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2007) (A federal court may consider additional factors in deciding an evidentiary hearing)
- Williams v. Beard, 637 F.3d 195 (3d Cir.2011) (good-cause standard for discovery in habeas petitions)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (extraordinary innocence standards not reached here)
- Albrecht v. Horn, 485 F.3d 103 (3d Cir.2007) (factors for assessing new science and residual guilt evidence)