Morris v. Beard
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1551
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Kelvin X. Morris was convicted of first‑degree murder and robbery in 1983 and sentenced to death.
- Trial counsel Tucker simultaneously represented Morris’s brother Artie in a civil matter, but the court was unaware of this conflict.
- Evidence at trial centered on eyewitness identifications and Morris’s inculpatory statements; defense argued mistaken identity.
- Post‑trial, Morris pursued PCRA petitions in which he later alleged the conflict of interest, but state courts denied relief and did not hold an evidentiary hearing.
- In 2001 Morris sought federal habeas relief; the district court held Tucker’s conflict of interest deprived Morris of effective assistance and vacated the death sentence, remanding for a new trial.
- The Third Circuit affirmed that a hearing was appropriate but vacated the order for a new trial and remanded for further proceedings on the conflict issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2254(e)(2) bars a hearing on the claim. | Morris argued the state court denial of a hearing did not bar a federal hearing. | Commonwealth argues the delay and state‑court denial show lack of diligence. | No; § 2254(e)(2) did not bar a hearing. |
| Whether Morris validly waived Tucker’s conflict. | waiver was not knowingly or intelligently made; no on‑the‑record colloquy. | Waiver can be valid absent a colloquy if shown by evidence. | Waiver was not proven knowingly or intelligently; conflict not waived. |
| Whether Tucker’s conflict adversely affected performance. | Conflict caused Tucker to avoid an alternative defense blaming Artie. | No clear proof that conflict altered trial strategy. | Record insufficient; remand for plenary evidentiary hearing. |
| Whether the district court correctly vacated the murder conviction and ordered a new trial. | Conflict warranted relief to prevent fundamental unfairness. | New trial not automatically required; need further fact development. | Remand for plenary evidentiary hearing; vacatur and remand reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bronshtein v. Horn, 404 F.3d 700 (3d Cir.2005) (PCRA one‑year limit not an adequate bar to federal review for pre‑Bronshtein defaults)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (U.S. 2000) (diligence analysis in § 2254(e)(2) tied to reasonable attempt to pursue claim in light of information available)
- Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386 (3d Cir.2010) (establishes prima facie standard for granting evidentiary hearings in habeas cases)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2007) (AEDPA evidentiary hearing framework and limitations)
- Taylor v. Horn, 504 F.3d 416 (3d Cir.2007) (state court denial of hearing on an adequate rule affects diligence analysis)
- Wilson v. Beard, 426 F.3d 653 (3d Cir.2005) (distinguishes diligence from default; supports state‑court hearing on claim denied on improper grounds)