Strawhacker v. State
2016 Ark. 348
| Ark. | 2016Background
- In 1990 Lonnie Strawhacker was convicted of rape; key trial evidence included voice identification, witnesses, and FBI hair-comparison expert Michael Malone, who testified pubic hairs were “absolutely indistinguishable” from Strawhacker’s.
- Malone also gave probabilistic and confidence statements (e.g., ‘‘one in five thousand’’), but acknowledged hair comparison is not as exact as fingerprints.
- In 2014–2016, DOJ/FBI reviews concluded Malone’s microscopic hair-comparison testimony in some cases exceeded scientific limits and ‘‘may have failed to meet professional standards,’’ and DOJ informed Strawhacker that Malone’s work was material to his conviction.
- Strawhacker sought leave to proceed in circuit court with a writ of error coram nobis; this Court previously granted appointment of counsel and a petition to proceed in circuit court was filed.
- The State argued the petition did not fit the four established coram-nobis categories and warned against expanding the remedy; Strawhacker argued DOJ’s repudiation and possible Brady implications justified relief.
- The Court granted permission to reinvest jurisdiction in circuit court to consider the coram-nobis petition, directing the trial court to evaluate materiality and permitting consideration of an expansion of coram-nobis under narrow, unique circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram-nobis may be used to attack conviction based on later-repudiated government expert testimony | Strawhacker: DOJ/FBI repudiation of Malone’s testimony and DOJ notice that it was material justify coram-nobis relief (or expansion) | State: Petition does not fit one of four established coram-nobis categories; expansion would open floodgates | Court: Granted leave to proceed; circuit court to consider petition and may apply expansion under narrow rule-of-reason when gov’t expert testimony is later repudiated |
| Whether Malone’s testimony constitutes material evidence whose repudiation requires relief | Strawhacker: Malone’s testimony was central and may have affected the verdict | State: Disputes that withheld/erroneous evidence exists or is material | Court: Materiality is for the circuit court to decide at evidentiary hearing under reasonable-probability standard |
| Whether coram-nobis categories are closed or may be expanded | Strawhacker: DOJ disclosure creates unique due-process gap warranting expansion | State: Courts should not ‘‘radically expand’’ coram-nobis; alternatives exist (DNA testing, habeas) | Court: Categories are not immutable; may be expanded in unique circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice |
| Standard for granting relief where government later repudiates its expert | Strawhacker: If repudiation is material, writ should issue | State: Finality and procedural limits counsel against relief | Court: Adopted rule-of-reason test: (1) gov’t presented expert science at trial; (2) expert was gov’t agent; (3) gov’t later repudiates that opinion — if repudiated testimony is material, relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Echols v. State, 360 Ark. 332 (Ark. 2005) (coram-nobis is extraordinary and historically rarely granted)
- Sanders v. State, 374 Ark. 70 (Ark. 2008) (coram-nobis allowed only under compelling circumstances)
- Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571 (Ark. 1984) (coram-nobis may be expanded to fill procedural gaps and protect due process)
- Strawhacker v. State, 304 Ark. 726 (Ark. 1991) (direct appeal affirming conviction)
- Cloird v. State, 349 Ark. 33 (Ark. 2002) (materiality governed by reasonable-probability standard)
- Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539 (Ark. 2009) (permission required to proceed in trial court with coram-nobis after appeal)
- Fukunaga v. State, 2016 Ark. 164 (Ark. 2016) (discussing special reliability perceived in expert testimony)
- United States v. Rosales, 19 F.3d 763 (1st Cir. 1994) (recognizing the ‘‘aura of reliability’’ of government experts)