Pinnell v. Belleque, No. 3:2006cv00828 - Document 168 (D. Or. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Respondent's Motion (# 108 ) for Partial Summary Judgment on exhaustion/procedural default grounds, DENIES in part Petitioner's Motion (# 120 ) for Evidentiary Hearing, and directs further briefing from Petitioner as to his Motion for Evidentiary Hearing as indicated (see full Opinion). Signed on June 26th, 2009 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (eo) Modified on 11/24/2009 (sm).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
EXHIBIT A TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CLAIMS FOR RELIEF PRELIMINARY First Claim For Relief Actual Innocence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Second Claim For Relief Oregon's Capital Statutory Scheme Is Unconstitutional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. The Statute Fails to Narrow the Class of Defendants Who are Eligible for the Death Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C. The Statute Allows Discretion in the Charging Decision Without Oversight or Review, Which Leads to Arbitrary Imposition of the Death Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 D. The Statute Does Not Guide the Jury s Discretion in Imposing the Death Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 E. The Statute Deprives Certain Defendants of Protections under the Oregon Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 F. The Use of Death Qualification Violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 G. The Statute Does Not Provide for Review of the Charging Decision or the Proportionality of the Death Sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 H. The Provision in Or. Rev. Stat. ยง 163.095 (1)(e) for Aggravated Murder Based on Torture Provides No Notice to the Defendant and No Direction for Prosecutors and the Court and Thus is Unconstitutionally Vague . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Third Claim For Relief Lack Of A Sufficiently Complete Record To Allow Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Fourth Claim For Relief Deprivation Of The Right To Be Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF GUILT TRIAL (FIRST) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 i Fifth Claim For Relief Deprivation Of The Right To A Guilt Trial Before A Fair, Impartial And Representative Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. The Unconstitutional Religious Disenfranchisement and Inappropriate Death Qualification led to the Impanelment of a Prosecution-Biased Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B. The Use of this Judicially Created Death Qualification Mechanism Also Violated Mr. Pinnell s Constitutionally Protected Right to Equal Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C. The Specific Removal of Prospective Jurors Coleman and Johnson . . . .10 D. Trial Court s Improper Statements to the Jury Outside the Presence of Mr. Pinnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 E. The Prosecutor s Repeated Questions Regarding Whether the Jurors Would Consider Prior Criminal History in a Determination of the Penalty Violated Mr. Pinnell s Right to Due Process and a Fair and Impartial Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 F. The Failure to Grant a Mistrial When the Prosecutor Intentionally Presented Inappropriate Evidence of Mr. Pinnell s Prior Criminal History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 G. Mr. Pinnell did Not Have a Fair, Impartial, and Representative Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Sixth Claim For Relief Deprivation Of The Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel At The Guilt Trial, Including State-Enforced Waiver Of The Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel, Resulting In Both A Irreconcilable Conflict And Abandonment By Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. Counsel Was Unqualified, Did Not Have Sufficient Time to Prepare, and Failed to Obtain a Qualified Capital Defense Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B. Counsel Failed to Adequately Represent Mr. Pinnell Prior to Trial; Counsel Failed to Supervise the Investigators and ii Conduct an Appropriate Investigation Into the Guilt and Penalty Phases; Failed to Develop a Theory Of The Case; and Failed to Effectively Represent Mr. Pinnell in Litigating Pre-Trial Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C. Counsel Failed to Adequately Represent Mr. Pinnell at the Guilt Trial, When Such Representation Would Have Obtained, at the Most, a Conviction for Felony Murder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D. Counsel Failed to Adequately Represent Mr. Pinnell at the Penalty Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 E. Counsel Failed to Ensure the Preservation of an Adequate State Court Record for Appeal, Post-Conviction, or Federal Habeas Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 F. Mr. Pinnell Did Not, and Could Not Have, Knowing and Intelligently Waived any Claims Regarding Burris Deficient Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 G. The State Court s Requirement That Mr. Pinnell Sign a Waiver of any Claims Regarding Burris Performance Constitutes Unconstitutional Interference With Mr. Pinnell s Right to the Assistance of Counsel, Resulted in a Conflict with Counsel, and Requires a Grant of Relief Without Any Further Assessment of Prejudice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Seventh Claim For Relief Prosecutorial Misconduct Prior To And At The Guilt Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A. The Failure to Turn Over Exculpatory Evidence Regarding the Criminal History of Donald Cornell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. The Failure to Disclose All Deals Provided to Prosecution Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C. The Presentation of Perjured Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 iii D. The Presentation of Junk Science on Hair Identification and Arguing to the Jury that Evidence as Conclusion Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 E. The Intentional Presentation of Evidence that Mr. Pinnell had Previously Been Incarcerated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Eighth Claim For Relief Violations Of Due Process, Equal Protection, And Fundamental Fairness At The Guilt Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A. Requiring Mr. Pinnell to Sign a Waiver of any Claims Regarding Counsel s Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B. The Trial Court s Admission of Evidence of the Randy Brown Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 C. The Trial Court s Admission of Prosecution Exhibits 9 and 12 . . . . . . . . 21 D. The Trial Court s Failure to Grant a Mistrial When the Prosecutor Intentionally Read Evidence that Mr. Pinnell had Previously Been in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 E. The Trial Court s Admission of the Transcript of the Testimony of Edgar and Stinsman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 F. The Guilt Phase Instructions and Verdict Forms Failed to Adequately Instruct the Jury on Critical Issues, and Were Hopelessly Convoluted and Confusing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF PENALTY TRIAL (SECOND) Ninth Claim For Relief Constitutional Violations In The Capital Statutory Scheme Used At The 1992 Resentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A. Mr. Pinnell was Sentenced to Death in 1988 Under a Facially Unconstitutional Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 B. Application of the 1991 Version of the Statute to Sentence Mr. Pinnell to Death Violated the Ex Post Facto Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 C. Application of the 1991 Version of the Statute Violated iv Mr. Pinnell s Rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Tenth Claim For Relief Deprivation Of The Rights To A Trial Before A Fair, Impartial And Representative Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A. The Continuing Constitutional Violations Caused by the Death Qualification Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 B. The Trial Court s Improper Statements to the Jury, Outside the Presence of Mr. Pinnell and his Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 C. The Failure to Provide a Full Transcript of Voir Dire Precludes this Court from Determining that a Fair, Impartial and Representative Jury was Impaneled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 D. Mr. Pinnell Did Not Have a Fair, Impartial, and Representative Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 E. Inappropriately Informing The Jury that Their Decision Would be Reviewed, Limiting the Jury s Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Eleventh Claim For Relief Deprivation Of The Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel At The Penalty Retrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A. The Continuing Impact of the Deficient Performance at the Guilt Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 B. Counsel Appointed to Represent Mr. Pinnell Were Unqualified, Failed to Develop an Adequate Relationship with Mr. Pinnell, and Failed to Timely Obtain a Qualified Capital Team or Prepare for the Penalty Retrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 C. Counsel Failed to Provide Effective Representation at the Pre-Trial Motion Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 v D. Counsel Failed to Protect Mr. Pinnell s Right to a Penalty Trial Before a Fair and Impartial Jury, and Failed to Adequately Voir Dire the Jury or Ensure Preservation of the Voir Dire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 E. Counsel Failed to Defend Against the Prosecution s Case, and Present a Coherent and Compelling Mitigation Case on Mr. Pinnell s Behalf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 F. Counsel Allowed the Jury to be Instructed, in Response to a Question, in a Way that Minimized their Responsibility for any Death Verdict, and in Violation of Clearly Established Supreme Court Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 G. Counsel Failed to Appropriately Address the Interference with Mr. Pinnell s Jury When it Came to Their Attention Post-Trial . . . . . . . . 33 H. Counsel Failed To Ensure the Preservation of an Adequate State Court Record for Appeal, Post-Conviction, or Federal Habeas Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 I. Mr. Pinnell Was Prejudiced by These Failings of his Appointed Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Twelfth Claim For Relief Violation Of The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination At The Penalty Phase . . . . . . . . 34 Thirteenth Claim For Relief Constitutional Violations Arising From The State's Attempts To Prove The Fact of "Future Dangerousness" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 A. Conviction of a Capitally Eligible Crime Based on a Standard of Proof Lower than Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and Lower Then Preponderance of the Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 B. The Violation of the Sixth Amendment Right to Confront the State s Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 C. Deprivation of the Right to Notice of the Allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 D. Deprivation of the Right to be Presumed Innocent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 E. Deprivation of the Right to a Trial Before a Fair and Impartial vi Jury on these Allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 F. Violation of the Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 G. Violation of the Right to Due Process, Fundamental Fairness and Equal Protection in Criminal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 H. The Violation of the Eighth Amendment Right to a Reliable Capital Sentencing Proceeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Fourteenth Claim For Relief Violation Of Right To Present All Available Evidence In Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Fifteenth Claim For Relief Prosecutorial Misconduct At The Penalty Retrial Any Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 A. Continuing Impact of the Misconduct Prior to and at the Guilt Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 B. Interfering With Mr. Pinnell s Ability to Present a Defense Case, Including Interfering With the Willingness of Witnesses to Testify on Mr. Pinnell s Behalf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 C. Changing Theories on Former Prosecution Witness Suzette LaPine at the Retrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 D. The Failure to Inform Counsel for Mr. Pinnell of Cornell s Subsequent Confessions and Other Exculpatory Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Sixteenth Claim For Relief The Use Of Unconstitutional Penalty Phase Instructions and Verdict Forms . . . . . . . . . 40 A. The Failure to Appropriately Advise the Jury on the Presumption of Innocence for, and the Elements of, all Unadjudicated Criminal Acts Presented by the Prosecution . . . . . . . . . . . 40 B. The Failure to Require Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt for the Factual Findings Required for a Capital Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 C. Additional Dilutions of the Burden of Proof and the Prosecutions s Obligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 vii D. The Failure to Give only Two Sentencing Options, After Mr. Pinnell Objected to the Third Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 E. The Failure to Adequately Define Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 F. The Failure to Adequately Instruct the Jury that the Decision Regarding the Death Penalty Rested with Them Alone, Without any Subsequent Review, and Specifically Informing The Jury that Their Decision Would be Review, Limiting the Jury s Feeling of Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 G. The Failure to Adequately Instruct, or Provide Verdict Forms that Clearly Stated that the Jury did not Have to Reach a Unanimous Decision to Have a Verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 H. Deprivation of the Right to Full Presentation of this Claim . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Seventeenth Claim For Relief Unconstitutional Interference With The Penalty Phase Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 A. The Bailiff/Judge s Secretary Instructions Were Incorrect as a Matter of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B. The Bailiff/Judge s Secretary Instructions Were a Coercive Allen Charge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 C. The Bailiff/Judge s Secretary Instructions Interfered With the Jury s Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Eighteenth Claim For Relief Insufficient Evidence To Convict On, And Actual Innocence Of, The Death Penalty And Future Dangerousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Ninteenth Claim For Relief Deprivation Of The Right To A Speedy Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 viii A. The Trial Court s Refusal to Grant Mr. Pinnell s Request for a Speedy Penalty Trial Violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 B. Deprivation of the Right to Full Presentation of this Claim . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Twentieth Claim For Relief Constitutionally Unreliable Conviction And Death Sentence And Cumulative Impact of Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF DIRECT APPEAL AND POST-CONVICTION . . . . . . . . . 47 Twenty-First Claim For Relief Constitutionally Insufficient Automatic Appeal And State Post-Conviction Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 A. The Failure to Provide an Appropriate Record for Appellate and Post-Conviction Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 B. The Failure to Appoint Qualified Counsel, and the Ineffective Assistance of Those Counsel who Were Appointed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 C. The Failure to Fund an Appropriate Post-Conviction Process . . . . . . . . . 48 D. The Failure of State Law Enforcement Agencies to Continue Their Obligation to Provide Exculpatory Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 E. The Deprivation of a Fair and Impartial Adjudicator for the Post-Conviction Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 F. These Failings led Directly to the Failure to Raise Numerous Meritorious Issues on Mr. Pinnell s Behalf on Appeal and in Post-Conviction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 REMAINING CLAIMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Twenty-Second Claim For Relief Cruel And Unusual Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 A. Violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments Arising From the Drugs and Methods Used to Execute Inmates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 ix B. Violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments Arising From the Delegation of Medical Procedures to Non-Medical Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 C. Violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments Arising from the Secrecy of the Execution Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 D. Violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments Arising From the Length of Time Mr. Pinnell must Spend on Death Row . . . . . . 50 E. Violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments Arising From the Execution Itself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Twenty-Third Claim For Relief Incompetency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 x
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
