Habeas Corpus Blog

Habeas Corpus - Habeas Win in Second Circuit

Been taking a break from blogging for awhile.  Posts are probably going to continue to be pretty sporadic for the foreseeable future.

But a decision today from the Second Circuit in Harper v. Ercole, 10-178-pr, deserves a timely post.  The Second Circuit vacated a district court dismissal of a habeas petition as untimely under the statute of limitations because (1) the petitioner had established that the limitations period should have been equitably tolled during his three-month hospitalization, and, (2) once that time is tolled, he filed his petitioner within the untolled time left in the one-year statute of limitations.  It's kind of a tricky holding to explain, so I'll get to it in a second.  Let's start with the details:

Harper v. Ercole, 10-0178-pr 

• Vacating Dismissal of Petition as Untimely
• Argued: 3/21/11; Decided: 7/26/11 Opinion by Raggi
• Panel: McLaughlin, Calabresi, Raggi
• Lower Ct. Info: 08-CV-3442, 2009 WL 4893196 (EDNY Dec. 16, 2009) (ENV) (LB)
• In Circuit: Circuit Court COA
• Issue: whether petitioner acted with reasonable diligence in filing his petition 65 days after his release from the hospital after the deadline had passed for timely filing

To help understand the holding, we need to start with the facts.

288 days into Harper's 365 day period to file a habeas petition, Harper went into the hospital for 98 days.  He filed his petition 65 days after he was released.  In real time, that is beyond the 365 days.  But if the 98 days are tolled, then it was within the 365 days he had to file the petition.  The DJ concluded that Harper did not exercise reasonable diligence after he was released from the hospital.

The Second Circuit rejected that reasonable diligence analysis.  Here's what the court held:

We now clarify that a litigant who seeks equitable tolling based on extraordinary circumstances and who establishes causation is required to show reasonable diligence in pursuing his claim throughout the period he seeks to have tolled. Once tolling ends and the limitations clock resumes, a § 2254 petition is timely as long as it is filed before the total untolled time exceeds one year.

Applying that holding to the case, the court concludes the following:

1. Harper qualifies for equitable tolling of AEDPA’s statute of limitations for the period from February 27, 2008, to June 3, 2008, because the undisputed record demonstrates that

(a) his hospitalization during that time constituted extraordinary circumstances causing him to miss the otherwise applicable May 14, 2008 deadline for filing a § 2254 petition; and

(b) Harper showed reasonable diligence in pursuing his claim throughout his
hospitalization;

2. The timeliness of Harper’s August 17, 2008 filing does not depend on him showing further diligence in the time between the end of the tolling period and that filing date, but rather on that filing being within one year of the total untolled time after Harper’s conviction became final; and

3. Because seventy-eight days remained on the limitations period when equity
suspended the statute on February 27, 2008, Harper’s August 17, 2008 filing, sixty-five days after tolling ended, was timely.

Seems like the fair and logical result to me.  Good win for petitioner.

Habeas Corpus - Summary Order

Second Circuit issued a summary order today in Bumpus v. Warden, Clinton Correctional Facility.  It was argued back in early March, making it the oldest outstanding habeas case that had been argued but not yet decided (at least among the ones I know about).

But, unfortunately, the petitioner has died.  So the appeal has been dismissed moot.  It's too bad since this was a really interesting constitutional issue (see below).

In any event, the details:

Bumpus v. Warden, Clinton Corr. Fac., 10-1513-pr 

• Appeal Dismissed as Moot (summary order here)
• Argued: 3/9/11; Decided: 7/13/11
  
• Panel: Walker, Parker, Livingston
• Lower Ct. Info: 97-CV-1791, 2010 WL 1330323 (EDNY April 06, 2010) (ENV)
• In Circuit: District Court COA
• Issues: due process and equal protection violations where Court of Appeals denied leave to petitioner but granted leave to co-defendant and subsequently reversed conviction on a ground that also applied to petitioner's situation

Habeas Corpus - Cert. Granted in Front-End Case

Old news, but last week the Supreme Court granted cert. in a front-end case.  The name of the case is Williams v. Illinois.  The issue is similar to the one that was just decided in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, but with a twist.  In Bullcoming, the issue was whether one expert could testify about the results of another expert.  The Court said that that is improper under the Confrontation Clause.  The issue in the new case is whether another expert can offer an independent opinion relying upon the results of a non-testifying expert (at least that appears to be the issue based on the lower court's decision).  The actual statement of the issue from the cert. petition is:

Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts, violates the Confrontation Clause.

Seems kind of like a sleight of hand to me.  It still allows the non-testifying expert's testimony into evidence without the ability to confront the expert.  But, in Bullcoming, Sotomayor seemed to suggest that this may not represent a Confrontation Clause violation.  She stated, "We would face a different question if asked to determine the constitutionality of allowing an expert witness to discuss others’ testimonial statements if the testimonial statements were not themselves admitted as evidence."  I guess now they are facing it.

I will, eventually, update the Supreme Court Cases page.  That's going to take some time.  I hope to get to it before the end of the summer.

Habeas Corpus - June 2011 Second Circuit Orders

Only one COA grant last month.  Here it is:

Montstream v. Superintendent, 11-802-pr

• Lower Ct. Info: 06-CV-787, 2011 WL 283252 (WDNY Jan. 25, 2011) (RJA) (VEB)
• Issues: (1) whether the double jeopardy claim was fairly presented to the state court; (2) whether petitioner's consecutive sentences represented a double jeopardy violation; and (3) IAC related to counsel's failure to challenge the consecutive sentences.

Habeas Corpus - Summary Order

Back on June 28, the Second Circuit issued a summary order in Watson v. Ricks, 10-2346-pr.  It's pretty fact-intensive, so there isn't much to write about.  As I stated in a previous post, this case is interesting because the MJ had issued a pretty novel conclusion that national origin discrimination is covered under Batson.  That issue was not present in the appeal, though.  The only issue in the appeal was factual: whether the prosecution used its peremptory strikes in a discriminatory fashion.  The Second Circuit held that the state court's conclusion that the strikes were non-discriminatory was not unreasonable.

Here are the details:

Watson v. Ricks, 10-2346-pr 

• Affirming Denial of Habeas; summary order here
• Argued 6/22/11; Decided 6/28/11
• Panel: Straub, Raggi, Wesley
• Lower Ct. Info: 05-CV-7288, 2010 WL 2346614 (SDNY June 02, 2010) (WHP) (JCF)
• In Circuit: District Court COA
• Issues: Batson violation