Samuel Anstey v. David Ballard, Warden
237 W. Va. 411
| W. Va. | 2016Background
- In 1995 Samuel Anstey was convicted of first-degree murder (felony-murder theory) for a 1994 trailer fire that killed his 81‑year‑old adoptive grandmother; jury sentenced him to life without parole.
- State’s theory: two separate incendiary fires (kitchen origin tied to a toaster; a separate small bedroom fire); State fire experts (including Harold Franck) testified to arson based on scene observations and laboratory analysis.
- Defense at trial: presented experts who concluded the fire was accidental (living‑room lamp short) and impeached State methodology; trial counsel cross‑examined State experts using NFPA 921 once.
- In 2014 Anstey filed a habeas petition arguing developments in fire science (embodied in later editions/endorsement of NFPA 921) constituted newly discovered evidence and rendered the trial fundamentally unfair; he sought a new trial or an omnibus evidentiary hearing.
- The circuit court (the same judge who presided over the trial) denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding NFPA 921 was not newly discovered (it existed in 1992), that deviations from NFPA 921 go to weight not admissibility, and that the new expert affidavits were cumulative/impeaching. The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether advancements in fire‑science/NFPA 921 constitute "newly‑discovered evidence" warranting a new trial | Anstey: post‑trial developments in NFPA 921 (and DOJ endorsement) make State experts’ methods unreliable; new experts would show origin is "undetermined" and undermine conviction | State: NFPA 921 existed in 1992; it is guidance (not mandatory); deviations affect weight/impeachment, not admissibility; new affidavits are cumulative | Held: No. NFPA 921 (and experts’ critiques) are cumulative/impeaching; Frazier factors not met, so no new trial |
| Whether admission of State expert testimony violated due process under Daubert/Wilt | Anstey: modern gatekeeping would exclude the State’s expert methods as unreliable, making the trial fundamentally unfair | State: Investigators’ methods were technical/specialized; Rule 702 (not Daubert/Gentry) governs; NFPA 921 is non‑mandatory; no retroactive Daubert relief in habeas | Held: No due process violation. Even if methods differ from NFPA 921, that goes to weight; Daubert/Gentry not retroactively dispositive here |
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary (omnibus) habeas hearing | Anstey: complexity and scientific character of claim require live testimony to develop record and show impact of NFPA 921 | State: Court reviewed briefs, affidavits, and trial transcript; petitioner did not identify additional necessary evidence | Held: No abuse of discretion. Trial judge’s familiarity with the record and the affidavits sufficed; Rule 9(a) requirements met |
| Whether newly‑proffered experts’ opinions would likely produce opposite verdict on retrial (Frazier factor 4) | Anstey: newer methodology strengthens defense theory (undetermined/accidental) and would sway a jury | State: Trial already had strong circumstantial/motive evidence and defense experts; new opinions are less favorable or similar to prior defense experts | Held: The habeas court correctly concluded the new evidence would not likely change outcome; Frazier factor not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 935, 253 S.E.2d 534 (W.Va. 1979) (sets five‑factor test for newly discovered evidence entitlement to new trial)
- Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417, 633 S.E.2d 771 (W.Va. 2006) (standard of review for habeas corpus appeals)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping standard for scientific expert admissibility)
- Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W.Va. 39, 443 S.E.2d 196 (W.Va. 1993) (adoption of Daubert framework in state jurisprudence)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert gatekeeping extended to technical expert testimony)
- State v. Shingleton, 237 W.Va. 669, 790 S.E.2d 505 (W.Va. 2016) (weight of expert testimony is for jury after admission)
- Schlesinger v. United States, 898 F.Supp.2d 489 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (deviations from NFPA 921 affect weight, not per se admissibility)
- State v. Davis, 217 W.Va. 93, 616 S.E.2d 89 (W.Va. 2004) (new scientific evidence may be cumulative and not warrant new trial)
- Bunch v. State, 964 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (post‑conviction advances in fire‑victim toxicology warranted new trial under facts)