E-Filed Document Mar 17 2016 16:56:59 2015-DR-00591-SCT Pages: 226 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CURTIS GIOVANNI FLOWERS, Petitioner, v. Case Number _______ STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Respondent. Supreme Court No. 1015-DR-00591-SCT Montgomery County No. 2003-0071-CR __________________ PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF __________________ W. Tucker Carrington (MS Bar #102761) Jonathan L. Abram* Mississippi Innocence Project Kathryn M. Ali* P.O. Box 1848 Hogan Lovells US LLP University, MS 38677-1848 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Tel: 601-576-2314 Washington, DC 20004-1109 Email: [email protected] Tel: 202-637-5681 Counsel for Petitioner Tel: 202-637-5771 Email: [email protected] David P. Voisin (MS Bar # 100210) Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 13984 *Admitted pro hac vice Jackson, MS 39236-3984 Tel: 601-949-9486 Benjamin J.O. Lewis Email: [email protected] Hogan Lovells US LLP 875 Third Avenue William McIntosh (MS Bar # 102835) New York, NY 10022 150 Buena Vista Ave, Apt. 2 Tel: 212-909-0646 Athens, GA 30601 Email: [email protected] Tel: 706-255-8611 * Admitted pro hac vice Email: [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY.............................................................................................................6 PRESERVATION OF ISSUES .....................................................................................................10 STANDARD OF REVIEW ...........................................................................................................13 FACTUAL BACKGROUND........................................................................................................13 1. Doyle Simpson’s .380......................................................................................16 2. The Bloody Partial Shoeprint...........................................................................18 3. The Gunshot Reside Particle............................................................................20 4. Eyewitness Identification.................................................................................20 5. The Jailhouse Informant ..................................................................................24 GROUNDS FOR RELIEF WITH SUPPORTING FACTS ..........................................................25 GROUND A...................................................................................................................................25 A. New Evidence About Alternative Suspects Requires That Mr. Flowers’ Convictions And Sentences Be Reversed....................................................................28 1. The State’s Evidence Does Not Exclude The Reasonable Hypothesis That Experienced Killers From Alabama Committed The Tardy Murders ..........................................................................................28 a. The evidence implicating third-party perpetrators is material and would likely change the outcome at trial ........................30 b. The State of Mississippi investigated the Alabama suspects and their connection to the Tardy murders ..........................................31 c. The evidence implicating third-party perpetrators is new and could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence prior to trial...........................................................................32 B. Newly Discovered, Sound Forensic Evidence Shows That The State Relied On Discredited Ballistics Evidence And Inaccurate Shoeprint Evidence In Violation Of Mr. Flowers’ Due Process Rights.......................................37 i TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page 1. New Evidence Demonstrates That the State’s Ballistics Evidence Was Unsound And Unreliable .........................................................................37 a. New Findings Issued by the FBI and DOJ After Mr. Flowers’ Trial are Newly-Discovered Evidence Requiring Reversal of Flowers’ Conviction .........................................................38 b. The New FBI and DOJ Evidence is Material ......................................43 2. New Evidence Demonstrates That The State’s Shoeprint Expert’s Testimony Was Unsound And Misleading......................................................46 C. New Evidence Confirms That Jailhouse Snitch Odell Hallmon Testified Falsely..........................................................................................................................48 1. New Evidence Confirms That Mr. Hallmon Perjured Himself At Trial (Again) ....................................................................................................49 2. This Evidence Is Material ................................................................................53 GROUND B...................................................................................................................................54 A. The State’s Suppression Of Material Exculpatory Evidence Of Alternative Suspects Violated Mr. Flowers’ Due Process Rights ..................................................58 1. The Prosecution Suppressed Exculpatory Evidence of Alternative Suspects............................................................................................................59 2. The Suppressed Evidence Of Alternative Suspects Undermines Confidence In The Outcome Of The Trial.......................................................62 3. The Defense Could Not Have Obtained The Suppressed Evidence with Reasonable Diligence ..............................................................................66 B. The State’s Suppression Of Material Impeachment Evidence Relating To Patricia Sullivan-Odom’s Pending Tax Fraud Indictment Violated Brady And Flowers’ Due Process Rights ...............................................................................67 1. The State Suppressed Evidence of Ms. Sullivan-Odom’s Indictment ........................................................................................................68 2. Ms. Sullivan-Odom’s Pending Tax Fraud Indictment Was Material............................................................................................................72 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page 3. Ms. Sullivan-Odom’s Indictment Was Not Discoverable With Reasonable Diligence.......................................................................................77 4. This Claim Is Not Procedurally Barred ...........................................................78 GROUND C...................................................................................................................................79 A. The State’s Knowing Presentation Of False Testimony From Lieutenant Wayne Miller And Investigator Jack Matthews About Alternative Suspects Violated Mr. Flowers’ Due Process Rights ..................................................81 1. Lieutenant Wayne Miller’s Testimony Was False...........................................82 2. Investigator Jack Matthew’s Testimony Was False.........................................83 3. The Prosecution Knew That Mr. Miller And Mr. Matthews Testified Falsely...............................................................................................84 4. The False Testimony Was Material .................................................................85 GROUND D...................................................................................................................................87 A. The Prosecution Violated Mr. Flowers’ Equal Protection Rights When It Struck Prospective Jurors On The Basis of Race.........................................................93 1. The Strength Of The Prima Facie Case ..........................................................93 2. The Reasons Offered for the Strikes Were Pretext..........................................94 a. The prosecution’s history of racial discrimination in jury selection ...............................................................................................95 b. Disparate questioning of African-American and white jurors ..................................................................................................102 c. Acceptance of white jurors sharing the proffered reason for the strike of African-American jurors................................................104 d. Lack of record support for the reason cited .......................................107 B. The State’s Racially Discriminatory Exercise Of Peremptory Strikes Also Violated The Constitutional Rights Of The Excluded African-American Jurors..........................................................................................................................110 GROUND E.................................................................................................................................114 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page A. Mr. Flowers Is Entitled To An Evidentiary Hearing To Prove That He Is Intellectually Disabled ...............................................................................................116 1. Expert Opinion That Petitioner’s IQ Is 75 Or Below ....................................118 2. Expert Opinion That There Is A Reasonable Basis To Believe That, Upon Further Testing, Petitioner Will Be Found Intellectually Disabled .........................................................................................................119 GROUND