Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 114 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 91 Nell Brown Mark Ahlemeyer Assistant Federal Public Defenders 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1700 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 326-2123 Facsimile: (503) 326-5524 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Petitioner IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON No. 3:07-cv-00413-AC FRANK E. GABLE, REPLY TO RESPONSE TO BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF Petitioner, AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS v. CORPUS ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED MAX WILLIAMS, EVIDENTIARY HEARING Respondent. REQUESTED ____________________________________ Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 114 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 91 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION. ............................................................................................................. 1 II. THE COURT SHOULD REJECT THE STATE’S ARGUMENT THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED INNOCENCE UNDER SCHLUP........... 2 A. Petitioner’s Evidence Of Innocence Is Reliable. .................................................... 3 1. The Recantations Are Corroborated By The Witnesses’ Initial Statements Denying Knowledge. ................................................................ 4 2. The Recantations Are Corroborated By Scientific Evidence Demonstrating The Trial Testimony Is The Product Of Interrogation Tactics That Tend To Produce False Statements. ....................................... 5 a. The Task Force’s Use Of The Reid Method Produced False Statements At Trial. ........................................................................ 5 b. Contamination Error And Use Of Polygraphs Shaped The False Statements. ...................................................................................... 9 3. The Trial Testimony, Much Of Which Has Been Recanted, Is Unreliable and Uncorroborated. ................................................................................. 16 B. The State’s Attacks On The Petitioner’s Evidence, Recent Investigation, And Newly Submitted Evidence Do Not Diminish Gable’s Innocence Evidence. ...... 19 1. The State’s Generalized Attacks On The Recantations Fall Short Because The Record Corroborates The Recantations And Undercuts The Sanitized Trial Testimony Relied On By The State. ......................... 19 2. Despite The State’s Attack On Walker’s Recantation, Gable Never Confessed To Walker. ............................................................................... 22 3. Despite The State’s Attack On Walsh’s Recantation, Gable Never Confessed To Walsh. ................................................................................ 24 4. Despite The State’s Attack On Harden’s Recantation, He Was Not An Eyewitness To The Crime. ........................................................................ 25 5. The State Focuses Selectively On Swearingen’s Favorable Pre-Trial Statements And Ignores The Inconsistencies Between Her Testimony And That Of Harden. ................................................................................ 25 i Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 114 Filed 03/16/16 Page 3 of 91 6. Despite The State’s Attack, Keerins’s Recantation Is Relevant. .............. 30 7. Despite The State’s Attack, Dr. Raskin’s Affidavit Is Reliable And Based On The State’s Own Investigation Of Its Key Witnesses. ............. 31 8. The Reaffirmation Of Problematic Trial Testimony Without Accounting For The Problems Does Not Diminish Gable’s Innocence Evidence. ................................................................................................... 33 9. Childers’s New Affidavit Renders Him Less Credible, But Does Not Diminish Gable’s Innocence Evidence. .................................................... 34 10. Janyne’s New Affidavit, Which Purports To Recall New Incriminating Information Never Disclosed To The Task Force, Renders Her Less Credible. .................................................................................................... 36 11. Janyne’s New Affidavit Contradicts Her Own Trial Testimony, But Gable’s Alibi Remains Intact. ................................................................... 39 12. The State Omits The Context For Gable’s Statements About Alibi. ........ 41 13. The State Still Takes Gable’s Innocent Statements Out Of Context To Make Them Appear Inculpatory As It Did At Trial. ................................ 44 C. The State’s Investigation Uncovered Additional Evidence Of Crouse’s Guilt. ... 48 III. RELIEF IS WARRANTED BECAUSE GABLE’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRESENT A COMPLETE DEFENSE WAS VIOLATED BY THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE OF CROUSE’S GUILT. .............................................................................. 52 A. Chambers Establishes A Fundamental Constitutional Principle. ......................... 52 B. The State’s Analysis Of The Evidence Corroborating Crouse’s Confession Is Flawed. .................................................................................................................. 57 1. Petitioner Focuses On The Crouse Confession Believed By The Task Force And The FBI. .................................................................................. 58 2. The State’s Claims Regarding The Physical Evidence Fail To Account For Corroboration Of The Crouse Confession.......................................... 59 3. The State Ignores Corroborating Evidence And Focuses On What The State Could Not Substantiate. ................................................................... 62 C. Petitioner Was Prejudiced By The Chambers Error. ............................................ 63 D. The Court Should Consider All Of The Crouse Evidence. ................................... 65 ii Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 114 Filed 03/16/16 Page 4 of 91 IV. RELIEF IS WARRANTED BECAUSE PETITIONER RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN HIS ATTORNEY FAILED TO MEANINGFULLY CONFRONT THE STATE’S CASE. ............................................................................... 66 V. GABLE’S SENTENCE VIOLATED THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE AND, BUT FOR COUNSEL’S MISTAKE, HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED A LAWFUL SENTENCE. ..................................................................................................................... 75 A. This Court Is Free To Address The Merits Of Gable’s Direct Appeal Ex Post Facto Claim. ......................................................................................................... 76 B. Counsel’s Failure To Object To The Application Of An Ex Post Facto Law At Sentencing Prejudiced Gable In Violation Of Strickland. .................................... 77 C. The State Court Decision Is Unreasonable Because The Court Grafted An Additional Burden Onto The Straightforward Strickland Analysis. ..................... 78 VI. CONCLUSION. ................................................................................................................ 84 iii Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 114 Filed 03/16/16 Page 5 of 91 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Alexander v. McCotter, 775 F.2d 595 (5th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................... 71 Boyde v. Brown, 404 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 66 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) ............................................................................................................ 63-64 Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (1966) ..................................................................................................................... 71 Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................. 20-21 Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) .......................................................................................................... passim Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................................................................................... 53, 56, 64 Christian v. Frank, 595 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................ 54-55 Correll v. Ryan, 465 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................. 70 Cudjo v. Ayers, 698 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................. 53, 54 Eze v. Senkowski, 321 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 74 Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198 (2001) ........................................................................................................... 70- 80 Harris ex rel. Ramseyer v. Wood, 64 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................... 66 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) ................................................................................................................... 80 Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) ..................................................................................................... 53, 54, 59 iv Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 114 Filed 03/16/16 Page 6 of 91 House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) ................................................................................................................... 2 Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) ................................................................................................................