King v. Trujillo
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6244
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- King, on death row in Arizona, was convicted in 1990 for armed robbery and murders, sentenced to death in 1991.
- He seeks to relitigate via a second or successive habeas petition under AEDPA § 2244(b)(3), and requests a stay of execution set for March 29, 2011.
- King contends newly discovered evidence exists: (a) Jones’s recantation about memory loss and (b) a recording claimed to be a copied version of the original surveillance footage.
- State courts upheld procedural bars and rejected the merits of these claims; Arizona Supreme Court denied review.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews under § 2244(b)(2) and (b)(3), requiring a prima facie showing of new evidence and actual innocence before allowing a second or successive petition.
- The court denies both the motion for leave to file a second or successive petition and the stay of execution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King states a prima facie case for a second or successive petition | King asserts newly discovered evidence and actual innocence. | State argues due diligence and actual innocence not shown; evidence not new. | No; King fails to show new factual predicate and actual innocence. |
| Jones's affidavit as newly discovered evidence and innocence claim | Jones's lack of memory supports actual innocence claim. | Record already showed Jones's memory issues; testimony rebutted; not new evidence. | Denied; not a new predicate and not showing actual innocence. |
| Whether Jones's recantation constitutes a Brady/ Napue violation material to innocence | Prosecutor used false testimony; recantation shows Brady/Napue violation. | Recantation fails to establish material Brady violation or innocence. | Denied; not material or sufficient to prove innocence. |
| Whether the recording being a copy instead of original undermines actual innocence | Copying of recording could have affected verdict; new evidence of misrepresentation. | Photographic evidence, whether original or copy, was admissible and reliable; no prejudice shown. | Denied; no due diligence or actual innocence shown; exhibits could be admitted. |
| Whether the court should stay the execution pending resolution | Stay warranted if substantial issues exist. | No substantial ground for relief; stay inappropriate. | Denied; stay denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. United States, 577 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2009) (discusses standards for meritorious Brady claims under AEDPA)
- Villafuerte v. Stewart, 142 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 1998) (actual innocence showing requires clear and convincing evidence under § 2244(b)(2)(ii))
- Morales v. Ornoski, 439 F.3d 529 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam; discusses gatekeeping for second or successive petitions)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence standard; factual innocence required)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas review of state-court evidentiary rulings)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecutorial misconduct; materiality and due process considerations)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (material undisclosed evidence; due-process implications)
- Souliotes v. Evans, 622 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2010) (discusses due diligence and evidence standards in § 2244 petitions)
- State v. King, No. CR 1990-000050, slip op. (Mar. 23, 2011) (Super. Ct. Ariz.) (Arizona state court) (credibility and timing of evidence; original record considerations)