Justin Wolfe v. Harold Clarke
691 F.3d 410
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Wolfe was convicted in 2002 of capital murder for hire, with Barber as key witness, and Wolfe was sentenced to death plus firearm and drug-conspiracy penalties.
- Barber testified Wolfe hired him to kill Petrole; Barber later pleaded guilty to non-capital murder and received a prison term.
- Barber repudiated his trial testimony in 2005, prompting Wolfe to amend his §2254 petition raising Schlup actual-innocence and Brady issues.
- On remand (Wolfe I), the district court allowed discovery and held an evidentiary hearing, finding favorable new evidence warranted review of Brady and related claims.
- The district court found the prosecution suppressed material Brady evidence, including the Newsome report, and granted relief vacating Wolfe’s convictions and ordering retrial or release.
- This Court affirms the district court’s Brady relief, holding the Newsome report and related suppression undermined trial fairness; the district court’s full vacatur of Wolfe’s convictions is sustained, though the Commonwealth may retry the murder-related charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady suppression and materiality of Newsome report | Wolfe contends suppression of Newsome report violated Brady and was material. | Commonwealth argues Newsome report not within remand scope or not material. | Brady violation established; Newsome report material; vacatur proper |
| Authority to grant evidentiary hearing and discovery on remand | Wolfe warranted an evidentiary hearing and discovery to resolve Brady/Giglio issues. | Commonwealth contends remand procedures were improper. | Remand procedures and discovery upheld; evidentiary hearing appropriate |
| Impact of Brady findings on all charges vs. only some | Brady/Giglio violations tainted trial, affecting multiple convictions including drug conspiracy. | Only some charges implicated by Brady; others unaffected. | All three Wolfe convictions vacated; retrial permitted on murder-related charges |
| Whether procedural defaults were excused on Schlup grounds | Schlup actual innocence excuses defaults; evidence supported innocence showing. | No clear justification for excusing defaults on the record. | Schlup relief not the centerpiece; cause-and-prejudice excusal supported by Brady merits |
| Remand scope per Wolfe I mandate | District court acted within Wolfe I’s mandate to pursue discovery and relief. | Remand actions exceeded mandate by expanding issues. | Actions within mandate; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) (Brady materiality framework and prejudice standard)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence gateway to review otherwise barred claims)
- Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963) (six-factor test for habeas merits on remand)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000) (diligence and state-court development rule for §2254(e)(2))
- Conaway v. Polk, 453 F.3d 567 (4th Cir. 2006) (external causes excusing failure to develop factual record)
- Monroe v. Angelone, 323 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2003) (Brady-based relief when suppressed evidence implicated trial fairness)