Jones v. Trammell
805 F.3d 1213
10th Cir.2015Background
- In 1999 Julius Jones was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death for the shooting of Paul Howell; Christopher Jordan pleaded guilty and testified Jones was the shooter in exchange for a life term.
- Physical evidence tied Jones to the crime scene: clothing matching eyewitness description, the victim’s Suburban in Jones’ possession, and a .25-caliber pistol (and matching bullets) hidden in Jones’ home.
- Before trial an inmate, Emmanuel Littlejohn, told defense investigators that Jordan confessed to him that he (Jordan) was the shooter and had hidden the weapon in Jones’ house; defense counsel investigated Littlejohn but declined to call him at trial due to credibility concerns.
- Post-conviction affidavits from Littlejohn and another inmate, Christopher Berry, asserted Jordan admitted being the shooter; Jones alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and corroborate Littlejohn’s claim and for not interviewing Berry.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) rejected Jones’ claims, finding the inmates lacked credibility and that their accounts did not materially corroborate one another; the federal district court denied habeas relief and a COA; the Tenth Circuit granted a COA limited to whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Littlejohn’s claim.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Jones failed to show the OCCA’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and attempt to corroborate an inmate’s claim that the co-defendant confessed | Jones: counsel unreasonably failed to pursue corroboration (and would have found Berry), undermining confidence in guilt and sentence | State: OCCA reasonably found inmate witnesses incredible and that additional investigation would not have produced materially persuasive corroboration | Held: Affirmed — Jones failed to show the OCCA’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland or an unreasonable factual determination under § 2254(d) |
| Whether Berry’s affidavit would have materially corroborated Littlejohn and changed the outcome | Jones: Berry’s affidavit corroborates and would have supported calling Berry or re-evaluating Littlejohn | State: Berry suffers same credibility problems; his statements are inconsistent with Littlejohn and do not materially corroborate | Held: OCCA reasonably discounted Berry; no reasonable probability of a different result shown |
| Whether the OCCA misapplied Strickland by treating failure-to-investigate as a strategic decision | Jones: OCCA applied deferential "strategic-decision" analysis improperly | State: OCCA applied correct standards and evaluated investigation reasonableness | Held: OCCA applied appropriate Strickland framework; not contrary to Supreme Court precedent |
| Whether federal habeas relief is available given § 2254(d) limits and Pinholster restriction to state-court record | Jones: federal review should find state adjudication unreasonable | State: § 2254(d) bars relief on the state-court merits determination; review limited to record before OCCA | Held: § 2254(d) not satisfied; habeas relief and evidentiary hearing denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (§ 2254(d)(1) "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" explained)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (federal habeas review under § 2254(d) limited to state-court record)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (certificate of appealability standard)
- Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15 (2009) (prejudice showing for failure-to-investigate requires reasonable probability the evidence would have been introduced and altered outcome)
- Hancock v. Trammell, 798 F.3d 1002 (10th Cir. 2015) (application of § 2254(d) limits on habeas review)
- Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for state-court factual findings in habeas appeals)