501 S.W.3d 803
Ark.2016Background
- Eugene Issac Pitts was convicted of capital felony murder; conviction affirmed on direct appeal in 1981 (Pitts v. State).
- Trial evidence included FBI hair-comparison testimony by Michael Malone linking hairs on victim's clothing to Pitts; Malone testified such matches were strongly probative though not as absolute as fingerprints.
- Decades of postconviction efforts (state and federal habeas petitions) failed to obtain relief; limited DNA testing in 2011 was inconclusive and additional mitochondrial testing was denied and samples later lost.
- DOJ/FBI reviews found Malone among examiners whose microscopic hair-comparison testimony "failed to meet professional standards," concluding his trial testimony overstated the science in specified ways; DOJ notified prosecutors and defense in 2014–2015.
- Pitts petitioned this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to seek writs (coram nobis, audita querela) or other relief based on the DOJ repudiation of Malone’s evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should reinvest jurisdiction to allow coram nobis or other relief based on DOJ's repudiation of Malone's hair testimony | DOJ's repudiation is newly discovered evidence that undermines a material trial expert; coram nobis remedy is available to address fundamental error not known at trial | State conceded Malone's work was material but opposed immediate grant of relief in this procedural posture (see concurrences/dissents) | Court granted reinvestment of jurisdiction and permission to pursue a writ of error coram nobis or other relief in the trial court |
| Whether Malone's testimony constituted error of the most fundamental nature warranting coram nobis | Pitts: Malone's testimony exceeded scientific limits and materially contributed to conviction; DOJ review newly establishes basis for relief | State: argued issues about timeliness, diligence, and that limits of hair comparison were known or explored at trial and earlier proceedings (see dissent) | Majority: treated DOJ repudiation as sufficiently new and potentially compelling to warrant coram nobis proceedings; remanded to circuit court |
| Whether relief must be sought by coram nobis rather than other postconviction avenues | Pitts: coram nobis fills gap where facts not known at trial and relief unavailable on direct appeal | State: prior remedies and earlier challenges existed; issues of procedural default and prior awareness may affect relief | Court followed Strawhacker precedent and expressly authorized pursuit of coram nobis (and other appropriate relief) in circuit court |
| Procedural timeliness and adequacy of record for granting relief | Pitts: DOJ letters are new postconviction developments justifying reinvestment | State: dissenters argued court acted without a fully developed record and that counsel may have known of criticisms earlier | Court nonetheless reinvested jurisdiction; concurring/dissenting opinions urged caution and further factual development at trial level |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitts v. State, 273 Ark. 220, 617 S.W.2d 849 (Ark. 1981) (direct-appeal opinion summarizing trial evidence and Malone's testimony)
- Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (Ark. 1984) (explaining function and narrow scope of the writ of error coram nobis)
- Pitts v. Lockhart, 753 F.2d 689 (8th Cir. 1985) (first federal habeas petition denied)
- Pitts v. Lockhart, 911 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1990) (second federal habeas petition denied)