Ring 131722 v. Ryan
2:16-cv-04070
| D. Ariz. | Jan 22, 2018Background
- Timothy Ring was convicted in Maricopa County of felony murder, armed robbery, burglary, conspiracy and theft; originally sentenced to death, the sentence was vacated after Ring v. Arizona and he was later resentenced to natural life following a plea agreement.
- Investigations relied heavily on wiretaps, informant leads (notably Michael Sanders), surveillance, searches of Ring’s property (where over $271,000 was found) and other corroborating evidence (purchases in cash, trash covers, etc.).
- Ring pursued post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of trial and PCR counsel, prosecutorial misconduct (Brady violations re: Sanders and FBI files), suppression/wiretap issues, insufficiency of evidence, and excluded ballistics evidence; state courts held evidentiary hearings and denied relief.
- In federal habeas, Ring raised seven grounds: (1) wiretap/Fourth/Fifth/Fourteenth/Title III violations; (2) denial of third-party defense; (3) insufficiency of evidence; (4) PCR court exclusion of new ballistics evidence; (5) prosecutorial misconduct/Brady; (6) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (7) ineffective assistance during PCR.
- The Magistrate Judge found Grounds One and Three procedurally defaulted; Grounds Two, Four, and Seven not cognizable on federal habeas; and rejected on the merits Ring’s Brady and ineffective-assistance claims (Grounds Five and Six).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural exhaustion/default of wiretap and sufficiency claims (Grounds 1 & 3) | Ring contends federal constitutional and statutory violations (wiretap abuses) and insufficiency of evidence were not resolved by state courts. | State/Respondents: Ring failed to fairly present these federal claims in state court; Arizona procedural rules now bar return. | Court: Grounds 1 & 3 are procedurally defaulted; Ring failed to show cause/prejudice or actual-innocence gateway. |
| Cognizability of state evidentiary rulings (third-party defense, PCR ballistics) (Grounds 2 & 4) | Ring argues state court excluded third-party culpability evidence and PCR court improperly excluded ballistics so due process violated. | Respondents: These are state-law evidentiary rulings; not cognizable on federal habeas absent independent constitutional violation. | Court: Grounds 2 & 4 are not cognizable on federal habeas and are dismissed. |
| Brady/prosecutorial misconduct (Ground 5) — nondisclosure re: Michael Sanders and FBI files | Ring alleges suppression of impeachment/exculpatory information about Sanders’ relationship with county prosecutors and undisclosed FBI materials undermined defense and third-party theory. | State: Trial/PCR courts found nondisclosure of Sanders’ prior informant status but not material; no withheld FBI exculpatory evidence; counsel had information and pursued subpoenas; no reasonable probability of different outcome. | Court: State courts reasonably applied Brady standards; Ring failed to show materiality or that outcome would likely differ. |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Ground 6) — assorted claims (ballistics, grand jury, opening statement, wiretaps, stun belt, instructions/sentencing) | Ring alleges pervasive deficient performance on multiple fronts causing prejudice. | State: Courts found most claims speculative or tactical decisions; credibility credited to trial counsel; no prejudice shown; some issues moot after resentencing to life. | Court: State-court adjudication was reasonable under Strickland/AEDPA; Ring’s IAC claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring jury to find aggravating facts for death penalty under Sixth Amendment)
- State v. Ring, 25 P.3d 1139 (Ariz. 2001) (Arizona Supreme Court opinion describing facts and issues on direct appeal)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s obligation to disclose favorable, material evidence to defense)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady materiality framework and prejudice requirement)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality standard: reasonable probability the result would be different)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual-innocence gateway to overcome procedural default)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default and cause-and-prejudice rule)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standard for federal habeas review of state-court decisions)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to state-court decisions under AEDPA)