United States v. Lee, No. 14-2853 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseLee and Kehoe, members of a white supremacist group, killed a gun dealer, his wife, and their eight-year- old daughter during a 1996 robbery. Lee was sentenced to death. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Lee sought post-conviction relief, 28 U.S.C. 2255, claiming that counsel provided ineffective assistance during the penalty phase by not adequately objecting to Dr. Ryan’s testimony regarding the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, which indicated Lee was a “psychopath” and a future danger if sentenced to life imprisonment. Lee's petition referenced Dr. Ryan’s sworn declaration, repudiating his reliance on the checklist, but neither that declaration nor supporting exhibits were attached. The court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Lee moved for reconsideration (Rule 59(e)), attaching affidavits purporting to show that the checklist was scientifically invalid and including Ryan’s sworn declaration that he should not have relied on the checklist and that the basis for a challenge was available before Lee's trial. The judge denied the motion, stating that had counsel timely presented these affidavits, it “might have determined that an evidentiary hearing was required.” The Eighth Circuit affirmed both denials. Lee moved for relief from the section 2255 judgment (Rule 59(e)), citing 2012-2013 Supreme Court decisions. The Eighth Circuit affirmed that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the successive section 2255 motion filed without appellate authorization.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. For the court's prior opinion on Lee's habeas petition, see U.S. v. Lee, 715 F.3d 215 (8th Cir 2013). The district court did not err in denying Lee's Rule 60(b) motion for lack of precertification by the Circuit Court since it was seeking to reopen a claim which had been raised in his initial habeas petition and decided by the district court; no evidentiary omission by counsel in Lee's first Section 2255 petition amounted to a procedural defect in the integrity of the habeas proceeding and any attempt to relitigate the merits denial of the petition would count as a second or successive habeas subject to AEDPA's precertification demands.
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.