Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 101 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 177 FREDERICK M. BOSS Deputy Attorney General NICK M. KALLSTROM #050023 SAMUEL A. KUBERNICK #045562 RAFAEL A. CASO #073612 Assistant Attorneys General Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 Telephone: (503) 947-4700 Fax: (503) 947-4794 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Respondent IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON FRANK E. GABLE, Case No. 3:07-cv-00413-AC Petitioner, RESPONSE TO AMENDED PETITION, AND TO BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF v. AMENDED PETITION MAX WILLIAMS, Respondent. Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 (503) 947-4700 / Fax: (503) 947-4794 Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 101 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 177 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND........................................................ 2 A. Historical Facts and Trial Proceedings ................................................................... 2 1. Michael Francke’s murder and the crime scene ......................................... 2 2. Eyewitness accounts ................................................................................... 4 a. Wayne Hunsaker............................................................................. 4 b. Cappie Harden ................................................................................ 4 c. Jodie Swearingen ............................................................................ 6 d. Earle Childers.................................................................................. 8 3. Testimony of petitioner’s close associate (Mark Gesner) and wife (Janyne Vierra)............................................................................................ 9 4. Petitioner’s statements to other associates and acquaintances.................. 12 a. Linda Perkins ................................................................................ 12 b. John Kevin Walker ....................................................................... 13 c. Daniel Patrick Walsh .................................................................... 15 d. Childers......................................................................................... 16 e. Gesner ........................................................................................... 17 5. Petitioner’s statements to police ............................................................... 18 6. Petitioner’s defense at trial, the verdict, and the sentence ........................ 30 B. Direct Appeal........................................................................................................ 31 C. Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) proceedings—first trial and first appeal............... 32 D. Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings—Remand and Second Appeal.................... 33 E. Current federal habeas proceedings ...................................................................... 36 III. PETITIONER HAS NOT MET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE UNARGUED CLAIMS.................................................................................................... 37 IV. PETITIONER’S CLAIMS ALLEGING TRIAL COURT ERROR UNDER CHAMBERS v. MISSISSIPPI ARE PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED AND WITHOUT MERIT. (Grounds Two and Seven) ............................................................. 38 Page i Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 (503) 947-4700 / Fax: (503) 947-4794 Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 101 Filed 11/09/15 Page 3 of 177 A. Johnny Lee Crouse’s Statements to Police ........................................................... 38 1. February 15, 1989 ..................................................................................... 39 2. April 4, 1989 ............................................................................................. 41 3. April 5, 1989 ............................................................................................. 43 4. April 6, 1989 ............................................................................................. 45 5. April 9, 1989 ............................................................................................. 45 6. April 11, 1989 ........................................................................................... 46 7. April 13, 1989 ........................................................................................... 46 8. June 15, 1989 ............................................................................................ 47 9. November 30, 1989................................................................................... 49 B. State Court Proceedings Related to Petitioner’s Chambers Claim....................... 50 C. Petitioner’s Chambers Claim is Procedurally Defaulted...................................... 53 D. Petitioner’s Chambers Claim is Without Merit .................................................... 55 1. Chambers v. Mississippi ........................................................................... 55 2. The exclusion of Crouse’s unsworn hearsay statements pursuant to state evidentiary rules did not violate petitioner’s due process rights because, unlike the statements at issue in Chambers, Crouse’s statements did not bear “persuasive assurances of trustworthiness” ........................................................................................ 60 E. Any Error in Excluding Crouse’s Statements was Harmless................................ 70 V. THE MAJORITY OF PETITIONER’S CLAIMS ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ARE PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED AND ALL CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT MERIT......................................................................... 71 A. The Martinez exception provides no basis to excuse any default......................... 71 1. The Martinez decision............................................................................... 72 2. Post-conviction counsel (Ken Hadley) was not constitutionally ineffective ................................................................................................. 73 3. Trial counsel (Abel and Storkel) were not constitutionally ineffective ................................................................................................. 74 B. Petitioner’s claims relating to the violation of the ex post facto clause (Grounds Four and Fifteen (subpart “P”)) are either procedurally defaulted or lack merit .......................................................................................................... 75 Page ii Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 (503) 947-4700 / Fax: (503) 947-4794 Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 101 Filed 11/09/15 Page 4 of 177 1. Ground Four.............................................................................................. 75 2. Ground Fifteen (P) .................................................................................... 77 C. Even if there were some basis to excuse the default of petitioner’s Grounds Fifteen (E) and Sixteen (B), the claims lack merit................................. 81 1. Trial counsel did not perform deficiently by not presenting federal law (Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973)) in support of admission of evidence of third party guilt, and, in any event, petitioner was not prejudiced (Ground 15(E)).......................................... 81 2. Appellate counsel did not perform deficiently by not raising the Chambers issue, and, in any event, petitioner cannot show prejudice (Ground 16(B)) ......................................................................... 84 D. Petitioner’s claims or subclaims regarding trial counsel’s “failure to investigate” are not substantial (Ground 15(A))................................................... 85 E. Failure to call or adequately examine witnesses (Randy Studer and Jodie Swearingen) (Ground Fifteen (subparts J and K))................................................ 90 1. Counsels’ decision not to call Studer as a defense witness (Ground Fifteen, subpart J)...................................................................................... 90 2. Counsels’ alleged failure to ‘effectively’ use Swearingen as a defense witness (Ground Fifteen, subpart K) ........................................... 93 3. Alleged failure to provide an effective closing argument (Ground Fifteen, subpart P)..................................................................................... 99 VI. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL INNOCENCE........... 101 A. The affidavits that petitioner presents, in which some witnesses recant their trial testimony, are not credible .................................................................. 102 1. Janyne (Gable) Vierra............................................................................. 103 a. Petitioner has not established that he was at his apartment at the time of the murder, such that no reasonable juror would vote to convict him........................................................... 104 b. Petitioner’s statements to Vierra, which were not presented to the jury, further inculpate petitioner in Francke’s murder...... 110 2. Jodie Swearingen .................................................................................... 113 3. Cappie Harden .......................................................................................