Williams v. Williams

Filing 24

ORDER granting 11 Motion to expand the record. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 8/9/16. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

US DTIJ
C,

•J1-

H

&;

2'i6fl r, 10 AM 947

SAVANNAH DIVISION

SU.JJ1 FGA.

JABNARD M. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

Case No. CV415-292

V.

CU RT
7.

STANLEY WILLIAMS, Warden,
Respondent.
1 IJ D 3

In this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 case, petitioner Jarnard Williams moves to
expand the record pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases. Doc. 11. He contends that the State "failed to disclose a
tacit cooperation agreement with" Isaac Fitzgerald, a witness at his 2009
murder trial, and in doing so violated his due process rights. Doc. 1 at 6;

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86 (1963) ("[Sluppression by the
prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due
process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,
irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution."). Williams
seeks to include an affidavit from Stan Fitzgerald, Isaac's attorney, that
he says proves the agreement's existence. Doc. 11-1 at 2. The State

t

opposes, arguing that Williams "failed to show that he acted with due
diligence to present such evidence to the state courts or that such
evidence was not available to him during the pendency of his state
proceedings." Doe. 12 at 2.
By its terms, Rule 7 empowers the court on its own initiative to
order the production of documentary evidence independent of
adversarial hearings and at any stage of the habeas review. As the
Committee Notes explain: 'It may instead be perfectly appropriate,
depending upon the nature of the allegations, for the district court
to proceed by requiring that the record be expanded to include
letters, documentary evidence, and, in an appropriate case, even
affidavits.' See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 Rule 7 advisory committee notes.
The Notes, however, caution: 'When the issue is one of credibility,
resolution on the basis of affidavits can rarely be conclusive, but
that is not to say they may not be helpful.' Id. Thus, Rule 7
facilitates, among other things, the early summary resolution of
habeas cases on an expanded record, generally when the relevant
issues are not ones of credibility.

McNair v. Haley, 97 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1284 (M.D. Ala. 2000).
At this stage of proceedings (pre-evidentiary hearing, post-briefing),
the Court GRANTS Williams' motion.' Doe. 11. It will address the

The stage of proceedings and what's to come matters greatly in deciding the
present motion. Right now, expanding the record to include the Fitzgerald affidavit
means the Court will consider it along with the State's response and Williams'
petition when it assesses his claims' merits. It does not mean that other provisions of
§ 2254 cease to apply.
2

V

merits of his petition in a separate Order.
SO ORDERED, this eday of August, 2016.

OMTED STATES MAGISTRATE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

For instance, § 2254(e) -- which severely restricts evidentiary hearings where an
"applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court
proceedings" -- will still bar a hearing on Williams' Brady claim unless he can show
that (1) due diligence would not have revealed the Fitzgerald affidavit before or
during his state habeas proceedings, and (2) "the facts underlying [his] claim would
be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional
error, no reasonable fact finder would have found [him] guilty of the underlying
offense." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); see also Owens v. Frank, 394 F.3d 490, 498 (7th Cir.
2005) ("The ability of a habeas petitioner to introduce new evidence into the record
depends on the interplay between two provisions: 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) and Habeas
Corpus Rule 7."). The Court need not decide those issues now (it must first assess
his claims' merits before deciding whether to hold a hearing, or grant or deny relief
outright), though it notes that the diligence hurdle may be tough to clear since he's
already extensively litigated the cooperation agreement issue both at trial (see doe.
14-15 at 15-20) and during his state habeas proceeding. See, e.g., doe. 14-3 at 9-13.
Williams also remains subject to § 2254(d), which prohibits relief "with respect to
any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the
adjudication. . . resulted in a decision" contrary to clearly established federal law, or
"resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable" factual determination in
light of evidence presented in state court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1) & (2). He already
litigated his Brady claim before the state habeas court, so § 2254(d) binds this Court,
Fitzgerald affidavit or not.
3