Edmonds v. Smith

Filing 93

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings on 5/23/2023. Edmonds' Objection (DE 87 ) is GRANTED to the extent that Edmonds challenges the incompleteness of the state court record reviewed by the Magistrate Judge. The Warden's Objection (DE 86 ) is DENIED with leave to reinstate. The R&R (DE 83 ) is REJECTED and REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge to make findings of fact in light of the entire state court record and amend any recommendations accordingly. cc: Counsel (SMJ) Modified on 5/23/2023 - link added (SMJ).

Case 3:15-cv-00859-RGJ-RSE Document 93 Filed 05/23/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1633

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
DEREK RENE EDMONDS

Petitioner

v.

Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-859-RGJ

CRAIG HUGHES, WARDEN

Respondent

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Derek Rene Edmonds (“Edmonds”) objects by counsel [DE 87] to Magistrate
Judge Edward’s (“Magistrate Judge”) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation
[DE 83 (“R&R”)] denying Edmonds’ § 2254 petition and certificate of appealability. The
Respondent, Craig Hughes,1 the Warden (“Warden”), did not respond to the objections. The
Warden also objected to the R&R [DE 86], and Edmonds did not respond. After objecting to the
R&R, Edmonds also filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority [DE 88] and the Warden responded
[DE 89]. These matters are ripe. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Edmonds’
Objections [DE 87], DENIES the Warden’s Objections [DE 86], and REJECTS the R&R [DE
83].
I.

BACKGROUND

The convictions for which Edmonds seeks relief arise from a fatal attack on Clifton Agnew
(“Agnew”), a homeless man, in the early morning hours of April 6, 2004, with co-defendant
Tyreese Hall (“Hall”). Edmonds and Hall appealed their convictions to the Kentucky Supreme
Court. In their separate appellate briefs, both Edmonds and Hall challenged the
humanizing/victim-impact testimony presented at trial by Kaye Thomas (“Thomas”) and the
hearsay testimony of eyewitness Larry Milligan (“Milligan”), among other claims Edmonds v.
1

Craig Hughes was substituted for Aaron Smith after the parties filed their objections. [DE 91 at 1630].

1

Case 3:15-cv-00859-RGJ-RSE Document 93 Filed 05/23/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 1634

Commonwealth, No. 2007-SC-000350-MR, 2009 WL 4263142, at *2–6 (Ky. Nov. 25, 2009)
(hereinafter Edmonds I). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed their convictions in a divided
opinion.2 Id. at *19.
Edmonds and Hall filed separate post-conviction motions. Hall filed his federal habeas
petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on July 19, 2011. Hall v. Beckstrom, 3:11-CV-00404-JGH,
DE 1, (W.D. Ky. July 19, 2011). The assigned magistrate judge recommended that Hall’s petition
be denied with prejudice, and the district judge adopted this recommendation in full. Id. at DE 14;
DE 18. See also Hall v. Beckstrom, 3:11-CV-00404-JGH, 2012 WL 4483816 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 28,
2012). The district judge later granted a certificate of appealability on five of Hall’s claims. Id.
at DE 23 (Jan. 3, 2013). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Hall’s habeas
petition. Hall v. Beckstrom, 563 F. App’x 338 (6th Cir. Apr. 15, 2014).
Edmonds, in the meantime, filed a state post-conviction motion under Kentucky Rule of
Criminal Procedure (“RCr”) 11.42. [DE 15-1, at 595–603]. The trial court summarily denied
Edmonds’ motion [id. at 622–23], and the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. See Edmonds v.
Commonwealth, No. 2013-CA-001467-MR, 2015 WL 865440 (Ky. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015)
(hereinafter Edmonds II). The Kentucky Supreme Court declined to entertain discretionary review
of Edmonds’ motion. [DE 15-1, at 696]. Edmonds did not seek certiorari at the United States
Supreme Court.
Edmonds filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition on November 30, 2015,
asserting eight constitutional claims. [DE 1]. Relevant here are Edmonds’ first four claims,
asserting his due process rights were violated: (1) when the trial court limited voir dire; (2) when

2

The Kentucky Supreme Court remanded for the limited purpose of entry of an amended judgment for
Edmonds’ sentence for first-degree sodomy because he received a life sentence rather than a sentence of
life without parole. Edmonds I, 2009 WL 4263142, at *19.

2

Case 3:15-cv-00859-RGJ-RSE Document 93 Filed 05/23/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 1635

it failed to strike certain jurors for cause; (3) when it allowed prejudicial guilt-phase victim
testimony from Thomas; and (4) when it instructed the jury not to consider Larry Milligan’s
eyewitness testimony, which failed to identify Edmonds. [Id.]. The assigned magistrate judge
recommended that Edmonds’ petition be denied and specifically found Edmonds’ first four claims
were precluded by “law of the case doctrine.” [DE 21]. Over Edmonds’ objections, the district
judge adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in full and denied Edmonds a certificate of
appealability. [DE 25].
The Sixth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on several of Edmonds’ claims,
including his four due process claims, and appointed Edmonds counsel. [DE 36]. The Sixth
Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of habeas relief, holding that “the law-of-the-case
doctrine does not apply across separate habeas actions brought independently by petitioners who
were codefendants in the underlying criminal proceeding.” Edmonds v. Smith, 922 F.3d 737, 740
(6th Cir. 2019) (hereinafter Edmonds III). The decision in Hall’s habeas proceeding, therefore,
could not be used to preclude relief in Edmonds’ case. Id.
The Sixth Circuit’s Opinion instructed the district court on remand to “obtain the entire
state record and assess [Edmonds’] claims on the merits.” Id. at 741. The appellate court also
addressed the proper standard of review for each of Edmonds’ claims on remand, directing the
district court to apply Chapter 153 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Sta. 1214 (1996) (“AEDPA”) deferential review to Edmonds’ voir dire
and for-cause-strike claims, to apply de novo review to his claim regarding the exclusion of
eyewitness testimony, and to determine in the first instance which standard of review applies to
his victim-impact-testimony claim. Id.

3

Case 3:15-cv-00859-RGJ-RSE Document 93 Filed 05/23/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 1636

The District Judge appointed Edmonds counsel and set a briefing schedule. [DE 42; DE
65]. Edmonds’ brief in support of his petition only addresses his eyewitness testimony and victim
impact testimony claims. [DE 67]. He asserted that both claims are subject to de novo review.
[DE 67]. The Warden’s response brief asserted, for the first time during this five-year habeas
action, that Edmonds’ claims must be dismissed because he did not exhaust them in his direct
appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court. [DE 72 at 1334]. If not dismissed for failure to exhaust,
the Warden submitted that Edmonds’ victim-impact-testimony claim should be reviewed under
the AEDPA’s deferential standard. [Id. at 1337].
Pursuant to this Court’s referral order, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R on
Edmonds’§ 2254 petition. [DE 83]. The R&R recommended dismissing the Petition and that the
Court deny a Certificate of Appealability. [Id. at 1489]. The Magistrate Judge found that Edmonds
waived his voir dire and for-cause-strike claims because he failed to address them and failed to
object the Warden’s assertion that he abandoned these claims. [Id. at 1460]. The Magistrate Judge
also found that the AEDPA’s deferential standard of review applied to Edmonds’ victim-impact
testimony claim [id. at 1470], and—as directed by the Sixth Circuit—analyzed Edmonds’ claim
regarding the exclusion of Milligan’s testimony de novo [id. at 1480]. Edmonds and the Warden
timely objected to the R&R. [DE 86; DE 87]. The Court now considers the R&R and Edmonds’
and the Warden’s objections.
II.

STANDARD

A district court may refer a motion to a magistrate judge to prepare a report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). “A magistrate judge must
promptly conduct the required proceedings . . . [and] enter a recommended disposition, including,
if appropriate, proposed findings of fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). This Court must “determine

4

Case 3:15-cv-00859-RGJ-RSE Document 93 Filed 05/23/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 1637

de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court need not review under a de novo or any other standard those aspects
of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made and may adopt the
findings and rulings of the magistrate judge to which no specific objection is filed. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149–50, 155 (1985).
III.

DISCUSSION

Edmonds, through counsel, raised four objections to the R&R: (1) the Magistrate Judge
failed to assess Edmonds’ Petition based on the entire trial record, (2) the Magistrate Judge’s denial
of relief based on Edmonds’ victim-impact testimony claim, (3) the Magistrate Judge’s denial of
relief on Edmonds’ exculpatory eyewitness exclusion claim, and (4) the Magistrate Judge’s denial
of a certificate of appealability (“COA”). [DE 87]. The Warden objected to the R&R based on a
failure to include certain facts included in the record by the Kentucky Supreme Court. [DE 86 at
1499].
A. Review of the Trial Record
Edmonds argues that, at a minimum, the Court should reject the R&R and return his claims
to the Magistrate Judge for full review based on the entirety of the state court record. [DE 87 at
1526–33]. Edmonds contends that the Magistrate Judge’s failure to review the full record resulted
in factual omissions and legal errors. [Id. at 1526].
In support of his argument, Edmonds relies on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Adams v.
Holland, 330 F.3d 398, 406 (6th Cir. 2003). In Adams, the petition for writ of habeas corpus
alleged that Adams’ Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the admission of his codefendant’s hearsay testimony during trial. Id. at 400. The district court found that Adams had
not exhausted his Confrontation Clause claim because he failed to include it in his state supreme

5

Case 3:15-cv-00859-RGJ-RSE Document 93 Filed 05/23/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 1638

court application for permission to appeal. Id. The Sixth Circuit reversed and held that Adams
had exhausted his federal claim. Id. at 402. Adams requested to amend the record on appeal
because the district court did not review the portion of the trial transcript which covered closing
arguments. Id. at 405. The Sixth Circuit held that “a District Court must make a review of the
entire state court trial transcript in habeas cases, and where substantial portions of that transcript
were omitted before the District Court, a habeas case should be remanded to the District Court for
consideration in light of the full record.” Id. at 406.
The Sixth Circuit remanded this case with instructions “to obtain the entire state court
record and assess those claims on the merits.” Edmonds III, 922 F.3d at 740. Without an analysis
of the underlying criminal proceeding, the Sixth Circuit could not assess Edmonds’ claims. See
id. Although the Sixth Circuit did not analyze Adams in Edmonds III, the Sixth Circuit has applied
Adams to reverse district courts that fail to review evidence-based habeas claims in light of the
“entire record of the evidence presented at trial.” Jeffries v. Morgan, 522 F.3d 640, 644–45 (6th
Cir. 2008) (“Having found that the district court committed reversible error by not reviewing the
entire trial record during its review of Jeffries’ habeas petition, we need not reach the other issues
raised on appeal.”). District courts have, likewise, relied on Adams to reject recommendations
from a magistrate judge. See, e.g., Durham v. Piazza, No. 07-cv-4338, 2009 WL 2902275, at *4
(E.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2009).
In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge conducted a thorough review of the facts articulated by
the Kentucky Supreme Court. [DE 83 at 1455–60]. The Magistrate Judge notes that the Kentucky
Supreme Court provided the facts relevant to Edmonds’ victim-impact testimony claim. [Id. at
1470]. The R&R then includes an analysis of Thomas’ testimony as it was recounted by the
Kentucky Supreme Court. [Id. at 1470–72 (citing Edmonds I, 2009 WL 4263142, at *2–4)].

6

Case 3:15-cv-00859-RGJ-RSE Document 93 Filed 05/23/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 1639

Similarly, the R&R summarizes the facts articulated by the Kentucky Supreme Court as they relate
to Milligan and Edmonds’ exculpatory eyewitness exclusion claim. [Id. at 1480–81 (citing
Edmonds I, 2009 WL 4263142, at *6)].
Despite the Magistrate Judge’s thorough analysis of the record provided by the Kentucky
Supreme Court, the R&R does not include an analysis of the entire state court records as directed
by the Sixth Circuit. See Edmonds III, 922 F.3d at 740. The Warden provided the Court and
Edmonds the entire state court record, which included: (1) DVDs of the entire trial, (2) DVDs of
all pretrial hearings, (3) a CD containing copies of the entire trial record filed in the Kentucky
Supreme Court, and (4) a CD of PowerPoint presentations. [DE 38]. Edmonds’ briefs have
included a thorough analysis of the record with detailed citations to the record to assist the Court.
[DE 67; DE 76; DE 87].
The Court does not approve and adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R regarding Edmonds’
claims based on prejudicial guilt-phase victim testimony from Thomas and his claim based on
Milligan’s eyewitness testimony because those recommendations are not based on a review of the
entire state court record. The Sixth Circuit directed the Court to assess these claims based on the
entire state court record. See Edmonds III, 922 F.3d at 740. Moreover, failing to assess the entire
state court record as applicable would run afoul of Adams and its progeny. Accordingly, the Court
sustains Edmonds’ objections and rejects the R&R as stated in this Section. The case is remanded
to the Magistrate Judge for an amended report and recommendation based on a review of the state
court record.
B. Provisional Approval of Parts of the R&R
Despite the above ruling on Edmonds’ objection, the Court has reviewed the R&R and
provisionally approves certain recommendations regarding Edmonds’ voir dire and for-cause-

7

Case 3:15-cv-00859-RGJ-RSE Document 93 Filed 05/23/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 1640

strike claims. The Magistrate Judge found that Edmonds waived these claims because he failed to
address them and failed to object the Warden’s assertion that he abandoned these claims. [DE 83
at 1460]. Edmonds did not object to these recommendations. [DE 87]. This approval is subject
to the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Magistrate Judge’s revised recommendations.
If the Magistrate Judge concludes that these recommendations require revision, then the Court will
reconsider its preliminary approval.
III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT
IS ORDERED that
1)

Edmonds’ Objection [DE 87] is GRANTED to the extent that Edmonds challenges

the incompleteness of the state court record reviewed by the Magistrate Judge;
2)

The Warden’s Objection [DE 86] is DENIED with leave to reinstate; and

3)

The R&R is REJECTED and REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge to make

findings of fact in light of the entire state court record and amend any recommendations
accordingly.

May 23, 2023

cc: Counsel of Record

8