United States v. Daniel Lee
792 F.3d 1021
8th Cir.2015Background
- Daniel Lewis Lee, convicted and sentenced to death for three murders in aid of racketeering, appealed prior to these proceedings.
- In a 2006 federal § 2255 petition Lee claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the penalty phase for failing to adequately challenge expert testimony based on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised; his petition referenced a Dr. Ryan declaration but did not attach it or other supporting affidavits.
- The district court denied the § 2255 petition without an evidentiary hearing; Lee later filed a Rule 59(e) motion attaching affidavits (including Dr. Ryan’s declaration) that were not previously submitted; the motion was denied.
- Lee filed a Rule 60(b) motion in 2013 seeking to reopen his § 2255 judgment, invoking Martinez and Trevino principles to excuse the omission and permit merits review of the ineffective-assistance claim.
- The district court treated the Rule 60(b) motion as a second or successive § 2255 petition requiring appellate precertification under AEDPA and denied it for lack of authorization; the court granted a certificate of appealability limited to whether the motion was successive.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding Lee’s Rule 60(b) motion sought to relitigate a claim already raised and decided on the merits and thus counted as a second or successive habeas petition requiring AEDPA precertification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lee's Rule 60(b) motion was a "second or successive" habeas petition under AEDPA | Lee: His motion attacked a procedural defect in the initial habeas proceeding (federal habeas counsel’s omission of affidavits) and is thus a Rule 60(b) challenge to the integrity of the prior proceeding, not a successive habeas petition | Gov't: The motion sought to relitigate the merits of an ineffective-assistance claim already presented and decided; omissions by habeas counsel are not defects that avoid AEDPA's second-or-successive rules | Held: Motion is second or successive; dismissal for lack of precertification was proper |
| Whether Martinez/Trevino principles (excusing state-law procedural default for cause) apply to federal § 2255 omissions by federal habeas counsel | Lee: Martinez/Trevino should extend to federal § 2255 context to excuse ineffective assistance by federal habeas counsel and allow merits review | Gov't: Martinez/Trevino address state-court procedural defaults in § 2254 cases and do not apply to federal habeas counsel omissions in § 2255 proceedings | Held: Martinez/Trevino inapplicable; those cases concerned state-court defaults and do not convert federal-counsel omissions into defects avoiding AEDPA's gatekeeping |
| Whether omission of supporting evidence by initial § 2255 counsel is a defect in the integrity of the habeas proceeding under Gonzalez | Lee: Failure to attach affidavits undermined integrity and warranted Rule 60(b) relief | Gov't: Gonzalez and Eighth Circuit precedent treat counsel’s omissions as not attacking integrity but as attempts to relitigate merits | Held: Counsel’s omissions do not amount to an integrity defect; Gonzalez controls and bars relief without precertification |
| Whether district court’s denial of Rule 59(e) introducing new affidavits was improper | Lee: New evidence should have prompted reconsideration or hearing | Gov't: Circuit rule bars using Rule 59(e) to introduce evidence that could have been offered earlier; denial was proper | Held: Denial of Rule 59(e) to introduce new evidence was consistent with circuit precedent and did not create a Martinez-type procedural-default issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (Rule 60(b) motions that attack the merits of prior habeas rulings are successive habeas petitions)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (state-court procedural default may be excused where initial-review collateral counsel was ineffective)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (expanded Martinez where state review made presentation of ineffective-assistance claims virtually impossible on direct appeal)
- Ward v. Norris, 577 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2009) (habeas-counsel omissions do not attack integrity of proceedings; claims treated as successive)
- United States v. Lee, 374 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 2004) (appellate decision affirming conviction and sentence)
- United States v. Lee, 715 F.3d 215 (8th Cir. 2013) (denial of § 2255 relief and COA ruling affirmed)
- United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2006) (Rule 59(e) cannot be used to introduce evidence that could have been offered before judgment)