Beames v. Cullen
Filing
48
ORDER regarding exhaustion status of Claim 11 in Federal Petition signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/23/2011. (Lundstrom, T)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JOHN MICHAEL BEAMES,
10
11
12
Petitioner,
vs.
MICHAEL MARTEL, Acting Warden
of San Quentin State Prison,
13
Respondent.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:10-CV-01429-AWI-P
DEATH PENALTY CASE
Order Regarding Exhaustion
Status of Claim 11 in Federal
Petition
15
16
On July 27, 2011, Petitioner John Michael Beames (“Beames”) filed his
17
petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Eastern District of California. In Claim
18
11 of his federal petition, Beames alleges trial counsel Rothbaum failed to contest
19
the central factual allegation of the prosecutor’s case: that Cassie had been killed
20
by a blow to the midsection that severed her liver and caused a fatal hemorrhage.
21
Beames contends the jury never learned that a competent autopsy and forensic
22
analysis would have established a completely different cause of death with very
23
different legal implications, that in fact, Cassie died from malnutrition and a
24
systemic infection and not from any act of violence, and that her transected liver
25
and broken ribs were sustained post-mortem, likely as the result of Beames’
26
attempts at resuscitation.
1
The Warden filed an answer as to Claim 11 as ordered, on August 29, 2011.
2
The Warden states no procedural bar is applicable to Claim 11, that all but one
3
subclaim have been exhausted, and that the AEDPA controls the disposition of
4
this case. Claim 11 asserts that trial counsel was constitutionally deficient for
5
failing to: (1) retain and present his own pediatric forensic pathologist with
6
respect to Cassie’s cause of death; (2) adequately cross-examine the prosecution’s
7
medical experts on this subject; (3) request lesser included instructions; and (4)
8
conduct a reasonable investigation with respect to Cassie’s cause of death, all of
9
which resulted in prejudice. The Warden asserts the fourth subclaim, failure to
10
conduct a reasonable investigation into the cause of Cassie’s death, was not
11
presented to the state court and is not exhausted.
12
The Warden denies that Beames is entitled to federal habeas relief on
13
Claim 11, including the unexhausted subclaim. Specifically, the Warden asserts
14
that Beames has not demonstrated the state court’s rejection of these subclaims
15
was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
16
federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court (see 28 U.S.C.
17
§ 2254 (d)(1)), or that the rejection was based on an unreasonable determination
18
of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings (see
19
§ 2254 (d)(2)).
20
Beames responded, asserting the Warden’s theory of non-exhaustion is
21
fundamentally flawed and Claim 11 is fully exhausted. Beames contends his
22
state petition identified the constitutional guarantee on which the claim was
23
based and discussed the governing federal law, as well as presented the factual
24
basis of the claim. Beames states that in both the federal and state petitions he
25
faulted trial counsel for failing to retain a defense expert to review the autopsy
26
report and provide an alternate and exculpatory opinion, and for failing to
O R eBrfgB m s
2
1
expose the errors and incompetence of the prosecution experts. Beames argues
2
that the supporting evidence, with one exception1 , was presented to the state
3
court, and that the text of Claim 11 is nearly identical to the claim in the state
4
petition.
Beames observes that first, in the Answer, the Warden challenged as
5
6
unexhausted the claim of counsel failed to conduct a reasonable investigation
7
with respect to Cassie’s death, and second, in the Brief Regarding Exhaustion,
8
challenged as unexhausted the claim that counsel failed to adequately investigate
9
the prosecution’s experts. Beames contends the first assertion, trial counsel’s
10
failure to investigate the true cause of Cassie’s death, goes to the very core of the
11
claim, which was repeated throughout the state petition, along with allegations
12
that this failure violated the Sixth Amendment. Beames further contends the
13
second assertion was repeatedly alleged in the state petition, and the change
14
from trial counsel’s failure to “adequately cross-examine” the state’s experts, to
15
“adequately investigate and cross-examine” is a minor change that does not
16
create a new claim. Beames asserts that the state petition repeatedly alleges the
17
inaccuracies of the state’s experts regarding Cassie’s injuries, and presents the
18
theory that trial counsel was deficient for failing to effectively cross-examine
19
them and expose their errors.
The Warden replies that the difference in language of the Answer and the
20
21
brief regarding exhaustion is due to vagueness in Beames’ petition, and asserts
22
that the subclaim pertaining to trial counsel’s alleged inadequate investigation as
23
set forth in Claim 11 is unexhausted. The Warden asserts that isolated sentences
24
25
26
1
Beames acknowledges the declaration of Allen Bloom submitted in support
of the federal petition, Exhibit 158, was not presented to the state court, and that
while it may not be considered for purposes of analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d),
it may be considered for other purposes.
O R eBrfgB m s
3
1
scattered throughout Beames’ state petition doe not allege a substantive claim
2
that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate. Rather, the Warden
3
asserts that these scattered sentences are no more than supporting argument for
4
the other subclaims, specifically, the failure to retain and present defense experts,
5
and the failure to adequately cross-examine the prosecution’s experts. The
6
Warden asserts the addition of “adequately investigate” to those subclaims
7
creates a new subclaim. The Warden argues that Beames presented the claim of
8
inadequate investigation of the prosecution’s experts in his exhaustion petition,
9
which is a sign that the subclaim of inadequate investigation in Claim 11 is
10
unexhausted.
The addition of “adequately investigate” does not create a new subclaim,
11
12
as it is implicit in the subclaims presented in the state petition. In order to
13
adequately cross-examine the prosecution’s experts, trial counsel would have
14
had to investigate those experts’ opinions, and in order to retain and present
15
defense experts, trial counsel would have had to investigate the evidence upon
16
which they would opine.
The Warden further argues that Claim 11 presents a new legal theory of
17
18
ineffective assistance of counsel pertaining to failure to conduct an adequate
19
investigation. However, the Warden does not indicate what new legal theory is
20
presented in the federal petition, and Beames’ citations to the relevant United
21
States Supreme Court cases, Strickland, Williams, Rompilla, and Wiggins, are all
22
citied in his state petition.
Although Claim 11 has been slightly reorganized in the federal petition, it
23
24
does not present new facts or a new legal theory from the claim which was
25
previously presented to the state court. That current counsel included a portion
26
of this claim in Beames’ state exhaustion does not render this claim unexhausted,
O R eBrfgB m s
4
1
as capital counsel often, out of an abundence of caution, re-present claims to the
2
state court. Claim 11 is exhausted.
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
0m8i78
November 23, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
O R eBrfgB m s
5
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
