MCKINNEY v. WALSH
2:11-cv-05398
E.D. Pa.Mar 6, 2012Background
- Petitioner McKinney seeks habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from convictions amended after trial in Pennsylvania.
- The court denied McKinney's petition following Magistrate Judge Hart's Report and Recommendation, and McKinney’s objections were overruled.
- Judge Hart concluded that McKinney’s after-discovered eyewitness claim (Valerie Tucker) did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
- The court held no probable cause for a certificate of appealability, and denied an evidentiary hearing.
- McKinney’s conviction occurred after a bench trial; the trial judge acted as factfinder and lawgiver.
- The AEDPA standards govern whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted and what constitutes due process in light of new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process and after-discovered evidence | McKinney asserts Tucker’s testimony could overturn the trial's outcome. | Trial court properly weighed evidence; no fundamental unfairness. | No due process violation; trial not fundamentally unfair |
| Evidentiary hearing under AEDPA | Evidence warrants an evidentiary hearing to develop new facts. | Record refutes innocence and shows no entitlement to a hearing. | No evidentiary hearing required |
| Certificate of appealability | McKinney should be allowed to appeal given new evidence. | No substantial showing of a denyable right; COA denied. | No probable cause for COA |
Key Cases Cited
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (due process requires independent constitutional violation for relief based on new evidence)
- Kunco v. Attorney Gen., 85 F. App’x 819 (3d Cir. 2003) (new evidence often insufficient to show fundamental unfairness)
- De Martino v. Weidenburner, 616 F.2d 708 (3d Cir. 1980) (newly discovered evidence not ground for relief where likely to acquit on retrial)
- Corchado v. Rabideau, 576 F. Supp. 2d 433 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) (no constitutional violation when eyewitness unavailable; no relief)
- Monroe v. Smith, 197 F. Supp. 2d 753 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (extraordinary showing required for habeas relief based on new evidence)