Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 74 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 198 Nell Brown Assistant Federal Public Defender 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1700 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 326-2123 Facsimile: (503) 326-5524 E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for Petitioner IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON FRANK E. GABLE, No. 3:07-cv-00413-AC Petitioner, v. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED PETITION MAX WILLIAMS, FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Respondent. ____________________________________ Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 74 Filed 10/17/14 Page 2 of 198 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION. .................................................................................................................. 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. ......................................... 5 A. Trial Court Proceedings. .................................................................................................. 5 1. The State’s Case. .............................................................................................................. 6 2. Gable’s Defense. ............................................................................................................ 11 3. Penalty Phase. ................................................................................................................ 15 B. Direct Appeal Proceedings. ........................................................................................... 15 C. Post-Conviction Trial-Level Proceedings. ..................................................................... 16 D. Post-Conviction Appeal. ................................................................................................ 17 E. Post-Conviction Proceedings on Remand. ..................................................................... 18 F. Second Post-Conviction Appeal. ................................................................................... 18 G. Federal Habeas Corpus Proceedings. ............................................................................. 19 III. EVIDENCE OF GABLE’S INNOCENCE SUPPORTS HABEAS RELIEF AND EXCUSES ANY PROCEDURAL DEFAULT. .................................................................... 20 A. Evidence of Actual Innocence May Form A Basis For Relief Or Excuse Procedural Default............................................................................................................................ 41 B. The Course Of The Investigation Supports Gable’s Innocence, And The Full Story Bolsters The Recantation Evidence. .............................................................................. 20 1. Background. ................................................................................................................... 20 2. Facts That Shaped The Early Investigation. .................................................................. 22 3. The Media Regularly Reported On The Investigation. .................................................. 26 4. Investigative Leads And Other Suspects. ...................................................................... 29 5. The Investigation Stalled; Media And Political Pressure Mounted. .............................. 30 6. The Pivot To Gable. ....................................................................................................... 34 C. Newly Available Recantation Evidence Supports A Finding Of Innocence. ................ 44 1. Michael Keerins, The First To Implicate Gable, Now Admits That He Lied. .............. 44 2. Expert Scientific Evidence Shows The Interrogation Methods Used By The Task Force Were Highly Likely To Produce False Testimony. ....................................................... 47 3. The State’s Eyewitnesses No Longer Link Gable To The Murder. ............................... 49 i Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 74 Filed 10/17/14 Page 3 of 198 4. New Evidence Shows That Gable Never Confessed To The Murder. .......................... 59 5. The Common Experiences Of The Witnesses Bolster The Recantation Evidence. ...... 87 6. The Scientific Evidence, Together With The Recantation Evidence, Supports A Finding Of Innocence. ................................................................................................................. 90 D. The Remainder Of The Evidence The State Marshalled Against Gable Does Not Support His Conviction.................................................................................................. 93 1. Gable’s Statements To Law Enforcement Are Indicative Of Innocence. ...................... 93 2. Gable Had An Alibi For 7:00 P.M. On January 17, 1989. ............................................ 99 3. The Remainder Of The Evidence Presented By The State At Trial Was Neither Inculpatory, Unique To Gable, Nor, In Some Instances, Relevant. ............................. 108 E. Evidence Of Third-Party Guilt. .................................................................................... 116 1. John Lee Crouse. .......................................................................................................... 116 2. Timothy “Rooster” Natividad. ..................................................................................... 126 3. Samuel “Navarro” Cornejo. ......................................................................................... 131 IV. ARGUMENT. ..................................................................................................................... 133 A. Habeas Relief Is Warranted Based On The Denial Of Gable’s Right To Present A Complete Defense And Other Trial Errors, Particularly, Of Counsel, That Individually And Cumulatively Violated His Sixth And Fourteenth Amendment Rights And Rendered His Trial Unfair. .......................................................................................... 133 1. Gable Is Entitled To Habeas Relief Because The Trial Court Improperly Excluded Evidence Critical To The Defense, Including Evidence Of John Crouse’s Guilt. ...... 136 2. Gable Is Entitled To Habeas Relief Because Counsel Performed Ineffectively Under The Sixth Amendment. ................................................................................................ 155 B. Habeas Relief is Warranted Because Gable’s Sentence Violates The Ex Post Facto Clause And His Counsel Failed To Effectively Safeguard His Ex Post Facto Rights. 172 1. The Ex Post Facto Clause Of The Constitution Bars Application Of A Later-Enacted Statute That Increases The Penalty For A Crime. ........................................................ 173 2. Gable Is Entitled To Habeas Relief Because His Sentence Violates The Ex Post Facto Clause. .......................................................................................................................... 179 3. Gable Is Entitled To Habeas Relief Because Counsel’s Errors With Regard To His Ex Post Facto Rights Violated the Sixth Amendment. ..................................................... 181 V. CONCLUSION. .................................................................................................................. 189 ii Case 3:07-cv-00413-AC Document 74 Filed 10/17/14 Page 4 of 198 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28 (1957) ................................................................................................................. 170 Avila v. Galaza, 297 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 158 Berryman v. Morton, 100 F.3d 1089 (3d Cir. 1996)................................................................................................. 172 Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) ............................................................................................................... 188 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) ....................................................................................................... 135, 154 Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................................... 182 Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 (1981) ............................................................................................................... 180 Burdge v. Belleque, 290 F. App’x 73 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 183, 184, 185 Burns v. Gammon, 260 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................. 185 California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) ............................................................................................................... 138 Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................................. 20, 21 Carter v. Bowersox, 265 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................. 158 Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................... 134 Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) .......................................................................................................... passim Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 138, 139, 142, 148 Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) ................................................................................................................