Hyman v. Brown
927 F.3d 639
2d Cir.2019Background
- In March 2000 a broad gunfight occurred outside 1540 Hassock Street (Queens); Maria Medina was killed by a stray bullet. Hyman admitted he was the sole occupant of a dark green Mazda parked at the scene but claimed he was unarmed and was ambushed.
- At trial three resident eyewitnesses (Contreras, Burton, McCoy) testified they saw flashes of gunfire from a dark/green car; Shaquana Ellis testified she saw Hyman firing from the passenger window and specifically identified him as a shooter. Forensics recovered multiple shell casings consistent with shots fired both from and toward the cars.
- Hyman was convicted of depraved-indifference murder and related weapons offenses; he later filed state collateral challenges, advancing (inter alia) a recantation by Ellis and ineffective assistance for not calling defense investigator Kevin Hinkson to impeach Ellis.
- A New York court denied the second §440 motion on procedural and merits grounds (recantation technicalities and procedural default of the ineffective-assistance claim). That state procedural ruling barred federal habeas review absent cause and prejudice or a Schlup actual-innocence gateway.
- In federal habeas proceedings the district court held Hyman met the Schlup gateway (crediting Ellis’s recantation and corroboration) and granted relief on the effective-assistance claim because trial counsel allegedly had a conflict with the investigator and unreasonably failed to call him.
- The Second Circuit (panel) reverses: on de novo review it holds Hyman failed to satisfy the demanding Schlup standard and therefore dismisses the habeas petition; it also questions whether the Sixth Amendment claim would be clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hyman made the Schlup actual-innocence gateway so federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim is permitted | Hyman: Ellis recanted her trial ID; corroborating witnesses and investigator evidence show she did not see the shooting, so without her ID the prosecution’s case collapses and a reasonable juror would have reasonable doubt | State: The recantation is partially incredible; other eyewitness and ballistic evidence still implicate Hyman; Schlup requires particularly strong new evidence | Held: Hyman failed Schlup. Recantation did not affirmatively show he did not or could not have committed the crimes; other eyewitness and ballistic evidence still supported conviction |
| Whether impeachment/recantation evidence is a permissible form of “new reliable evidence” under Schlup | Hyman: Impeachment/recantation may be considered; Schlup’s list is illustrative | State: Impeachment evidence is insufficient as a categorical matter | Held: No categorical limit; impeachment may be considered, but here it was not compelling enough |
| Credibility of Ellis’s recantation and corroboration | Hyman: District court’s credibility findings that Ellis did not see the shooting were correct and supported by corroboration | State: District court clearly erred in crediting the recantation given inconsistencies and incentives | Held: Appellate court defers to district court on credibility in part (no clear error in narrow finding that Ellis did not see the shooting), but that credibility finding alone is insufficient under Schlup |
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to call investigator Hinkson—allegedly due to a fee dispute—constituted an actual conflict and Strickland prejudice | Hyman: Fee dispute created an actual conflict; counsel unreasonably failed to call Hinkson whose sightline evidence would have impeached Ellis | State: No clearly established Supreme Court precedent makes a fee dispute an automatic actual conflict; Hinkson’s evidence was weak or unavailable and counsel’s decision could be reasonable strategy | Held: Court did not reach merits because Schlup gateway failed; also observed no clearly established law supports finding an actual conflict from a fee dispute and Hinkson’s evidence was not obviously compelling |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (sets demanding actual-innocence gateway standard for overcoming procedural default)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (Schlup’s list of evidence is illustrative; court must consider all evidence when assessing actual innocence)
- Rivas v. Fischer, 687 F.3d 514 (2d Cir. 2012) (application of Schlup standard; guidance on evaluating new forensic evidence and gateway review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (concurrent-representation actual-conflict doctrine)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (cautions about expanding Sullivan; distinguishes types of conflicts)
- Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986) (Schlup/actual-innocence discussion; courts should consider all probative evidence)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (Schlup standard is demanding and actual-innocence gateway is rare)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (discusses limits of freestanding actual-innocence claims and miscarriage-of-justice principle)