Lopez v. Miller
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175394
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Lopez seeks an evidentiary hearing to resolve a gateway actual innocence claim and an ineffective assistance claim after § 2254(d) review considerations.
- The court must decide how Cullen v. Pinholster affects use of new evidence from a hearing to assess a state court’s adjudication under § 2254(d).
- Lopez was convicted in 1989 in Kings County, Brooklyn, primarily on Chapman’s eyewitness testimony and was sentenced to 25 years to life.
- Chapman later recanted in writing, claiming she was coerced, and two alibi witnesses (Guido and Rivera) provided affidavits in 2005 claiming López was with them at the time of the shooting.
- Cafield’s letter alleging Chapman recanted was never pursued pre-sentencing due to counsel disruptions and other staff changes.
- In 2010, Justice Demarest denied López’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate, including findings on ineffective assistance and actual innocence, but did not expressly address a hearing on those issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on actual innocence gateway | Lopez argues for a hearing to develop credible new innocence evidence. | Respondent contends Pinholster prevents using hearing evidence to support innocence considerations under § 2254(d). | Lopez entitled to an evidentiary hearing on actual innocence. |
| Use of hearing evidence to resolve § 2254(d) (ineffective assistance) claims | Lopez may present hearing evidence to support a claim that the state court unreasonably applied federal law. | Pinholster precludes reliance on hearing evidence to prove unreasonable application under § 2254(d). | Hearing evidence may be considered for § 2254(a) outcome if § 2254(d) is satisfied, but not to re-litigate the § 2254(d) determination. |
| Timing of the evidentiary hearing relative to § 2254(d) ruling | A single hearing on both claims is efficient and necessary given overlapping facts. | Timing could be early, but Pinholster leaves open whether to hear before or after § 2254(d) ruling. | Court may hold the hearing before ruling on § 2254(d); a single hearing on both claims is appropriate. |
| Scope of § 2254(d) review after hearing | If § 2254(d) is satisfied on the state-record basis, hearing evidence should be used to decide relief under § 2254(a). | Hearing evidence cannot be used to satisfy § 2254(d) but can be used post hoc for § 2254(a). | Hearing evidence may be used for § 2254(a) de novo review only after a § 2254(d) hurdle is cleared. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (actual innocence gateway to habeas review and credible new evidence required)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (U.S. 2000) (AEDPA deference and standard for Strickland claims clarified)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (U.S. 2007) (de novo review permitted when § 2254(d) is satisfied and facts reviewed anew)
- Detrich v. Ryan, 677 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2012) (supports using new evidence for § 2254(a) after § 2254(d) hurdle)
- Rivas v. Fischer, 687 F.3d 514 (2d Cir. 2012) (actual innocence showing may toll AEDPA and allow merits review)
- Drake v. Portuondo, 321 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2003) (district court discretion to hold evidentiary hearings under Rule 8)