(HC) Hughes v. Walker, 2:10-cv-03024

Background

Petitioner Deangelo Hughes was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and attempted robbery; enhancements for felony murder and personal use of a firearm were found true. He was sentenced to life without parole plus a consecutive 25-years-to-life enhancement.
At trial, preliminary-hearing testimony from witness Timothy Clay was admitted after the prosecution established Clay was unavailable; Clay had earlier given an inculpatory statement to police that was used to impeach his preliminary-hearing testimony.
Years after trial, Clay executed post-conviction affidavits/recantations claiming he lied to police, naming another person as the shooter, and alleging a prosecutor’s investigator told him to leave the county so he would not testify at trial.
Hughes filed state habeas petitions seeking an evidentiary hearing on Clay’s new affidavit; state courts denied relief (finding Clay not credible and the prosecution exercised due diligence to locate him). Federal habeas proceedings followed, including a stay for exhaustion and later reopening.
The magistrate judge applied AEDPA standards and denied Hughes’ request for an evidentiary hearing, concluding the state courts’ factual findings (unavailability and Clay’s lack of credibility) were reasonable and that the new affidavits did not compel a hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting Clay’s prior testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because Clay was allegedly made unavailable through prosecutorial misconduct	Hughes: Clay’s post-conviction affidavit says the investigator dissuaded him from testifying and told him to leave, so Clay was effectively made unavailable and prior testimony should not have been admitted	Respondent: The prosecution exercised reasonable, prolonged diligence to locate and serve Clay; no credible evidence shows affirmative dissuasion that would defeat unavailability	Denied — court found the state courts reasonably concluded the prosecution exercised due diligence and Clay’s allegations were not credible enough to show misconduct or render the state findings unreasonable
Whether the state courts’ factual findings (including credibility determinations) were unreasonable under AEDPA § 2254(d)(2)	Hughes: State courts erred and should have held an evidentiary hearing because the post-conviction affidavit undermines prior findings and the fact-finding process was deficient	Respondent: State courts had ample record support; recantations are unreliable; under AEDPA federal court cannot overturn reasonable state-court factfinding; Pinholster limits consideration to state-court record	Denied — magistrate held the state-court credibility determinations were not objectively unreasonable and an evidentiary hearing was not required
Whether new evidence (Clay’s recantation and mother’s declaration) entitles petitioner to relief or an evidentiary hearing	Hughes: New affidavits present newly discovered evidence of innocence and prosecutorial misconduct warranting hearing	Respondent: Recantations are highly suspect and the mother’s declaration was not before state courts; even taken, contradictions undermine credibility	Denied — court concluded recantation lacked credibility on its face and Cullen v. Pinholster bars considering evidence not presented to state court
Whether federal court should review state court denial de novo because state process was deficient	Hughes: Urges that state fact-finding process was deficient requiring de novo review and a hearing	Respondent: State process was adequate; Ninth Circuit precedent allows deference unless clearly unreasonable	Denied — applied AEDPA deference; found no deficiency sufficient to overcome § 2254(d) deference

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay at preliminary hearings is Confrontation Clause material)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference; state-court decisions presumed adjudicated on merits)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (distinct standard for unreasonable application of federal law under AEDPA)
Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (witness unavailable only if prosecution made good-faith effort to obtain presence)
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (prosecution’s burden to show reasonable steps to secure witness attendance)
Landrigan v. Taylor, 550 U.S. 465 (no evidentiary hearing required if record refutes petitioner’s factual allegations)
Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463 (9th Cir.) (recantations are unreliable and disfavored)