Ray Dansby v. Larry Norris, 682 F.3d 711

Dansby was convicted by a jury in Arkansas on two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death.
Postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule 37 was denied; district court denied federal habeas relief on all claims.
The certificate of appealability covered claims including actual innocence, postarrest silence, and sufficiency of evidence; some claims were expanded by later panels.
Key prosecution evidence included eyewitnesses Justin Dansby and Greg Riggins, autopsy findings, and a jailhouse confession attributed to McDuffie.
A Doyle v. Ohio issue arose from testimony about Dansby’s postarrest silence; the Arkansas Supreme Court addressed Confrontation Clause limits on McDuffie’s bias.
The panel vacated and remanded Claims II (Sixth Amendment cross-examination) and III (Brady/Napue) for further consideration, and denied expansion of the certificate on others.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Actual innocence standard	Dansby claims actual innocence warrants relief.	State argues threshold is extraordinarily high; no freestanding innocence.	No relief; extraordinarily high threshold not met.
Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence insufficient for premeditation/deliberation.	Evidence overwhelming; supports premeditation.	Evidence supports conviction; not contrary to Jackson v. Virginia.
Post-arrest silence and due process	Testimony about invoking rights violated Doyle and due process.	Testimony explained lack of taped statements; permissible explanatory context.	Discussion of silence as explanatory not a Doyle violation; no due process error.
Confrontation rights and McDuffie's bias	Limitations on cross-examination/ extrinsic evidence violated Sixth Amendment.	No constitutional error; Arkansas court’s rulings valid.	Claim II vacated for further consideration; not yet resolved on the merits.
Brady/Napue and prosecutorial misconduct	Prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence and allowed false testimony.	State responded that issue addressed on merits; no default.	Brady/Napue claim remanded for further consideration due to notice issue.

House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (extraordinarily high threshold for actual innocence)
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (actual innocence gateway is unavailable without extraordinary proof)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (gateway actual-innocence standard)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (due-process standard for sufficiency of evidence)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (post-Miranda silence cannot be used to impeach testimony)
Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (1986) (limits on using postarrest silence to rebut insanity defense)
Mathenia v. Delo, 975 F.2d 444 (8th Cir. 1992) (preliminary explanation of later taped statement not improper impeachment)
Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (narrow exception to Coleman for ineffective-assistance claims in initial-review collateral proceedings)
Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) (cause to excuse procedural default when postconviction counsel abandons petitioner)
Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988) (mitigating evidence evaluation and Mills/vacate Mills-style reasoning)
Anderson v. State, 163 S.W.3d 333 (Ark. 2004) (Arkansas mitigation jury form interpretation)