Terrick Nooner v. Ray Hobbs
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17932
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Nooner convicted of capital felony murder in Arkansas; sentenced to death.
- He pursued state and federal post-conviction relief without success before filing a second federal habeas petition alleging actual innocence.
- He relied on Antonia Kennedy’s recantation, Rockett’s confession, and Hartley’s video-height analysis to argue new, favorable evidence.
- District court conducted two evidentiary hearings, rejected relief as not new or not credible, and found no clear showing of actual innocence.
- This court affirms, holding the purported new evidence was not “new” or credibly unreliable, and the total evidence would not convince reasonable jurors of innocence.
- The court denies Nooner’s requested plenary hearing and discovery advances, and declines to disturb the district court’s credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hartley’s height evidence is "new" for Schlup purposes | Nooner argues Hartley’s analysis is new evidence not available earlier | State argues Hartley’s methodology is not new evidence; pre-trial options existed | Not new; credibility findings upholding district court |
| Whether the district court properly weighed credibility of recantations and confessions | Nooner asserts district court erred in credibility rulings denying new favorable statements | State contends credibility determinations were appropriate and supported by record | No error; credibility determinations upheld |
| Whether Nooner established actual innocence as gateway to Brady claim | Nooner seeks gateway relief based on actual innocence | State disputes likelihood of jurors’ acquittal given trial evidence | No reasonable juror would find innocence; gateway claim fails |
| Whether district court’s discovery and evidentiary hearing rulings were an abuse of discretion | Nooner claims improper limits on discovery and hearing scope | State argues court acted within Schriro/Schlup framework | No abuse of discretion; rulings within permissible limits |
| Whether any alleged procedural errors were structural or prejudicial | Nooner argues extended hearing and related actions were structural error | State argues no structural error occurred | Not structural; any errors did not prejudice substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (actual innocence standard; gateway jurisdiction for habeas)
- Kidd v. Norman, 651 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2011) (credibility determinations in new-evidence analysis deserve deference)
- Amrine v. Bowersox, 238 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2001) (credibility of new evidence reviewed with deference)
- Storey v. Roper, 603 F.3d 507 (8th Cir. 2010) (Schlup-like analysis; evaluation of new evidence)
- Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1977) (federal habeas proceedings and trial fairness)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2007) (standard for evidentiary hearings in habeas)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (stand-alone actual innocence discussion (super-high standard))