Houck v. Stickman
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23622
| 3rd Cir. | 2010Background
- Houck was convicted in Pennsylvania state court of kidnapping, aggravated assault, carrying a firearm without a license, reckless endangerment, and criminal conspiracy for events on October 13, 1997.
- Houck testified at trial denying involvement; the defense claimed he was unaware of the Freeman assault and that the car ride formed part of a different incident.
- Houck appealed; appellate counsel did not pursue an alibi-based ineffective assistance claim centered on school log-book witnesses.
- Houck filed state post-conviction relief, which failed; he later filed federal habeas petitions asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and related claims.
- Respondents argued procedural default due to failure to exhaust state remedies; Houck alleged cause and prejudice due to appellate counsel’s failure.
- Houck later submitted affidavits as newly presented evidence to support actual innocence under Schlup, which the district court did not preliminarily consider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether actual innocence excuses procedural default. | Houck argues new evidence shows innocence; gateway exception applies. | Default remains unless Schlup standard met; evidence insufficient to show no reasonable juror would convict. | Not satisfied; evidence insufficient to open gateway; default not excused. |
| What counts as 'new evidence' for the actual innocence gateway. | Affidavits not available at trial due to ineffective counsel, should be considered new. | Newness requires not available or discoverable with due diligence; evidence here not sufficiently new. | Assumed new for purposes of discussion, but still insufficient to meet Schlup standard. |
| Whether the newly presented affidavits could, if considered, undermine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | Affidavits show school logs or alibi-type testimony could contradict trial evidence. | Affidavits are vague, lack basis, and do not clearly exculpate Houck to a level of reasonable doubt. | Affidavits do not create a reasonable doubt sufficient to satisfy Schlup. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence gateway requires new reliable evidence and likely no conviction.)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (cause and prejudice rule; attorney error can be cause, not mere ignorance.)
- Amrine v. Bowersox, 128 F.3d 1222 (8th Cir. 1997) (definition of 'new evidence'—not discoverable at trial due to due diligence.)
- Gomez v. Jaimet, 350 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2003) (recognizes difficulty where the core issue is ineffective assistance affecting discovery of evidence.)
- Hubbard v. Pinchak, 378 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2004) (actual innocence gateway discussed in context of procedural default.)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (actual innocence gateway details and assessment of new evidence the federal court must consider.)
- McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) (fundamental miscarriage of justice concept in gateway analysis.)
- Goldblum v. Klem, 510 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2007) (procedural considerations in addressing potentially barred claims on the merits.)