Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    HermanWallace Motion To Expedite Documents

    Uploaded by

    cbsradionews
    Louisiana case, Angola. Herman Wallace.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    HermanWallace Motion To Expedite Documents

    Uploaded by

    cbsradionews
    30 views13 pages
    Louisiana case, Angola. Herman Wallace.

    Original Title

    HermanWallace Motion to Expedite Documents

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Louisiana case, Angola. Herman Wallace.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    30 views13 pages

    HermanWallace Motion To Expedite Documents

    Uploaded by

    cbsradionews
    Louisiana case, Angola. Herman Wallace.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 13

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA : : : : : : : : : : : : :

    HERMAN WALLACE, Petitioner, vs. HOWARD PRINCE, WARDEN, Respondent.

    CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:09-CV-01027 CHIEF JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON MAGISTRATE JUDGE STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER

    PETITIONERS MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION


    Petitioner Wallace hereby moves this Court, pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in the interests of justice, for expedited consideration of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Wallace requests that a Report and

    Recommendation (Report) be issued within 30 days of the filing of this motion; that the parties be directed to file objections no later than 14 days upon issuance of the Report; and that the District Court rule no later than 60 days thereafter. Urgent consideration of Wallaces pending claims is warranted for several reasons. First, Wallace has presented strong claims of constitutional error in the context of a compelling Schlup innocence claim. Second, Wallaces claims of constitutional error in this case are exceptionally persuasive and should prevail. Third, delay in this case has already been inordinate. Finally, and most importantly, Wallace has recently been diagnosed with cancer. Further delay in the effective and expeditious administration of judicial review in this case may very well result in manifest injustice. -1Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 75 06/21/13 Page 1 of 9

    I.

    Wallaces Innocence This case raises fundamental questions about the wrongful incarceration of an

    actually innocent person.

    (See Doc. No. 57-2 at 25.)

    Moreover, the wrongful

    incarceration has taken place under conditions of unconstitutional hardship, as Wallace has now been held under conditions akin to solitary confinement for over 40 years. See generally, Wilkerson v. Stalder, 00-Civ-304 (M.D.La) (Doc. No. 105 at 21, adopted without modification at Doc. No. 116) (observing that the length of Wallaces confinement under extended lockdown conditions is so far beyond the pale that this Court has not found anything even remotely comparable in the annals of American jurisprudence.) (Doc. No. 105 at 21; adopted without modification, Doc. No. 116). Although there is no

    procedural default in this case, Wallace has asserted that he is prepared to make an innocence showing under House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 534, 539-54 (2006). Among other things, the undersigned represents that new evidence of Wallaces innocence includes a scientific review of the bloody print found at the crime scene this case which exculpates Wallace, and recantation from key State witnesses. This evidence, combined with

    evidence which was presented to the jury in 1972including alibi testimony and prison documents that prove Wallace was present at work during the time of the crime powerfully substantiates Wallaces unwavering assertions of innocence, which now span over four decades. II. The Strength of Wallaces Claims Wallace has presented exceptionally strong claims for relief in this case. His trial, which took place in January of 1974, was rife with constitutional error, and there can be -2Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 75 06/21/13 Page 2 of 9

    no dispute that the case against him was weak in the first instance. Wallaces petition has been extensively briefed by both parties and he will not here re-argue the merits of his claims. However, for purposes of this motion, Wallace highlights some of the strengths of his petition: Claim D. The grand jury which indicted Wallace did not include a single woman. It is well-settled that this grand jury was convened under systemically discriminatory procedures. The States only answer is procedural default, but this Court has already rightly held that this claim is exhausted and not procedurally defaulted. There is no challenge to the substantive merits of this claim. (See Doc. No. 45 at 11-12.)

    Claim A. The prosecution suppressed crucial impeachment evidence as to each of their inmate witnesses. Hezekiah Brown and Chester Jackson were the States two main witnesses and both perjured themselves when they denied that they had been given compelling incentives to testify. Incentives as significant as the promise of a pardon, which was ultimately delivered. Viewed individually, each of these violations of due process merits relief; when viewed cumulatively, and in light of the other weaknesses in the States case, there can be no doubt Wallace was denied a fair trial. Claim B. Wallaces trial counsel was forced to act under profoundly divided loyalties when his co-defendant turned States witness mid-trial. Trial counsel had to cross-examine his own client, with no notice that his client had become a witness for the prosecution. That Jackson took the stand and gave favorable testimony concerning Wallaces third co-defendant, Gilbert Montegut, only further and impossibly divided trial counsels loyalties. Trial counsel subsequently admitted he had no strategic basis for not moving for a mistrial, but he failed to pursue that preferable strategy out of shock and confusion. Claim E. The merits of Wallaces Sandstrom claim are beyond reproach. His jurorswho had already been provided perjurious testimony and denied the opportunity to consider a case that had been fairly tested by adversarial processwere given a classic burden-shifting instruction. The prosecution was wrongly relieved of having to prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

    -3Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 75 06/21/13 Page 3 of 9

    III.

    Inordinate Delay Wallaces habeas petition was filed in December of 2009. (Doc. No. 1.) No claim

    C is mentioned supra, because Petitioner voluntarily dismissed that claim after this Court found it had not been properly exhausted rather than stay this case to pursue exhaustion. Likewise, Petitioner voluntarily dismissed his Claim F, in the interests of an expeditious resolution of this case. (Doc. No. 25 at 1.) Nevertheless, because of multiple extensions of time and procedural litigation, the State did not file an Answer until July 15, 2011over a year and a half later. (Doc. No. 53.) Wallaces response to the Answer was filed timely on August 30, 2011 (Doc. No. 57), and amended per the Courts instructions in October of 2011. (Doc. No. 64.) At this point, the claims have been fully submitted for nearly two years. IV. Manifest Injustice The undersigned are now aware that on June 3, 2012, Wallace wrote the Court directly, to plead for consideration of his petition. In that letter, attached hereto as Exhibit A, Wallace explained he believed a stomach fungus was killing him. On Friday, June 14, 2013, as a result of a visit to LSU hospital, Wallace was for the first time diagnosed with cancer. His prognosis is as yet undetermined. However, what is clear is that his continued confinement, under lockdown conditions, will surely infringe on his ability to seek out the best available oncology and palliative care. Indeed, upon information and belief, Wallace has been denied even standard medical care, and that the denial of standard medical care is proximate cause of his now life-threatening illness. Wallace is also 72 years old. Respectfully, the undersigned submits that further delay in -4Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 75 06/21/13 Page 4 of 9

    Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 75

    06/21/13 Page 5 of 9

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing motion was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system this 21st day of June, 2013. Notice of this filing will be sent to opposing counsel by operation of the Courts electronic filing system.

    By: /s/Carine Williams CARINE WILLIAMS Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (US) LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 212-872-9847 Email: Carine.Williams@squiresanders.com

    -6Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 75 06/21/13 Page 6 of 9

    EXHIBIT A

    Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 75

    06/21/13 Page 7 of 9

    Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 75

    06/21/13 Page 8 of 9

    Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 75

    06/21/13 Page 9 of 9

    Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 76

    07/09/13 Page 1 of 2

    Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 76

    07/09/13 Page 2 of 2

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MINUTE ENTRY: JULY 26, 2013 JACKSON, C. J. HERMAN WALLACE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 09-1027-BAJ HOWARD PRINCE, ET AL This matter came this day for a telephone conference on Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited Consideration (doc. 75) and Plaintiffs Supplementation to Petitioners Motion for this Courts Expedited Consideration (doc. 78). PRESENT: Nicholas J. Trenticosta, Esq. Carine M. Williams, Esq. George H. Kendall, Esq. Counsel for plaintiff Dale R. Lee, Esq. Counsel for defendants The Court discussed pending motions with Counsel. The Court granted the Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited Consideration (doc. 75) and Plaintiffs Supplementation to Petitioners Motion for this Courts Expedited Consideration (doc. 78). The Court informed Counsel that the Report and Recommendation on the

    Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 80

    07/26/13 Page 1 of 2

    Plaintiffs Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus will be forth coming. *****

    BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

    cv36: 40 min.

    Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 80

    07/26/13 Page 2 of 2

    You might also like