McCullough v. State
2017 Ark. 292
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Walter A. McCullough was convicted in 2005 of a terrorist act and first-degree battery; his conviction was affirmed on appeal.
- He filed a second pro se petition seeking leave to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to pursue a writ of error coram nobis alleging Brady violations.
- McCullough alleges the State and his trial counsel intimidated witnesses, suppressed identities of interviewed persons, and encouraged perjured testimony.
- He submitted three affidavits: Tonya R. Allen (2017) alleging threats and suppressed witnesses, and two 2009 affidavits (Bobby Liles and James Lumley) previously submitted in his first coram nobis petition.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether McCullough alleged extrinsic, material facts sufficient to show a Brady violation that would justify coram nobis relief.
- The Court found the affidavits conclusory, lacking factual substantiation of suppressed or material exculpatory/impeachment evidence, and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave should be granted to reinvest jurisdiction for coram nobis review | McCullough: new affidavits show Brady violations and witness coercion warranting coram nobis | State: allegations are conclusory and previously raised; no new, material, extrinsic facts shown | Denied — petition lacks merit and fails to present grounds for coram nobis |
| Whether evidence favorable to defense was suppressed in violation of Brady | McCullough: State suppressed witness identities/testimony and encouraged perjury, undermining the verdict | State: no specific factual showing that material evidence was withheld or that nondisclosure was prejudicial | Denied — no factual substantiation of suppressed material evidence; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Whether affidavits provided new, extrinsic facts sufficient for coram nobis | McCullough: Allen, Liles, Lumley affidavits establish coercion and recantation issues | State: affidavits are conclusory, some were part of earlier petition, and do not show materiality or prejudice | Denied — affidavits are conclusory and fail to meet the burden for coram nobis relief |
| Whether impeachment or perjury allegations amount to Brady materiality | McCullough: alleged perjury and impeachment evidence was withheld and material | State: allegations lack specificity about what testimony would have been and its significance | Denied — impeachment allegations not shown to be material or suppressed; Brady elements not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecution's duty to disclose favorable material evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (defines Brady three-element test and reasonable-probability materiality standard)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (impeachment evidence falls within Brady; materiality standard)
- Newman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 61 (Ark. 2009) (permission required to file coram nobis after appeal)
- Roberts v. State, 425 S.W.3d 771 (Ark. 2013) (burden on petitioner to show extrinsic, fundamental error)
- Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (enumerates coram nobis grounds and standard)
- Isom v. State, 462 S.W.3d 662 (Ark. 2015) (Brady is a ground for coram nobis)
- Green v. State, 502 S.W.3d 524 (Ark. 2016) (requires factual substantiation to establish Brady violation)
- Cloird v. State, 182 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. 2004) (petitioner must fully disclose specific facts, not conclusions)
- State v. Larimore, 17 S.W.3d 87 (Ark. 2000) (strong presumption of validity for convictions; coram nobis is rare)