Thomas v. Williams
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9096
7th Cir.2016Background
- In 2001 Tony Thomas was convicted of murdering Khatim Shakir based primarily on five eyewitness identifications and sentenced to 75 years.\
- After conviction, Thomas’s trial counsel sent a 2005 letter reporting hearsay that unidentified gang members told Officer Massi that a drug dealer, Robert Pinkston, was the shooter.\
- Thomas filed a 2005 state post-conviction petition claiming actual innocence based on the Strunck letter; the state court rejected it as unauthenticated hearsay.\
- In 2007 Thomas filed a successive state post-conviction petition expressly alleging a Brady violation (that the prosecution withheld information that Pinkston was implicated); the state courts denied leave to file the successive petition as procedurally defaulted for not being raised earlier.\
- Thomas raised the Brady claim in federal habeas proceedings, but the district court denied relief as procedurally defaulted and found he had not shown actual innocence to excuse the default. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.\
Issues
| Issue | Thomas's Argument | State/Government Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas fairly presented a Brady claim to Illinois courts in his 2005 petition | His 2005 petition (with Strunck letter) alerted state courts to Brady because it alleged newly discovered evidence pointing to Pinkston | The 2005 petition alleged actual innocence/new evidence, not a Brady claim; no citation to Brady or facts showing the prosecution knew and withheld evidence | Not fairly presented; Brady claim was not raised until 2007 and is procedurally defaulted |
| Whether the state-court procedural bar is an independent and adequate ground to preclude federal habeas review | The bar should not block review because the 2005 filing sufficed to exhaust the Brady claim | Illinois denial of leave for successive petition rested on an independent/adequate state procedural rule (failure to raise earlier) | State procedural bar is independent and adequate; federal review is precluded |
| Whether Thomas can overcome default by showing actual innocence (Schlup gateway) | The Strunck letter, Horn and Betts affidavits collectively establish actual innocence or at least raise sufficient doubt to excuse default | The new material is uncorroborated hearsay within hearsay and is not reliable; trial evidence (five ID’s, Massi’s presence, weak alibi) is strong | Actual innocence exception not met; new evidence is unreliable and does not make it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would convict |
| Whether federal courts may decide the Brady claim on the merits despite procedural default | Thomas urged review because of the constitutional Brady issue and asserted Schlup innocence gateway | Procedural default and lack of Schlup showing bar merits review | Court declines to reach merits; affirms denial on procedural default grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence material to guilt or punishment)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (independent and adequate state grounds doctrine bars federal review of defaulted claims)
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (exhaustion requires presenting federal claims to state courts)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence gateway standard to excuse procedural default)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (types of new reliable evidence that can support Schlup gateway)
- Dist. Atty’s Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (Brady concerns evidence existing at trial; limits on post-conviction discovery claims)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (standards and limits for asserting actual innocence)
- McDowell v. Lemke, 737 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2013) (fair-presentment analysis for habeas exhaustion)