Watts v. McCain et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 . Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DANIEL WATTS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-1050

SANDY MCCAIN, WARDEN

SECTION “A”(2)
ORDER

The Court, having considered the petition, the record, the applicable law, the
Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the objection
to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, hereby approves the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and adopts it as its opinion in
this matter.
The Court notes that Watts' codefendant, Kimble, received federal habeas relief
based on his lawyer's failure to move for a severance. Watts and Kimble were tried
together and the jury found Kimble to be the more culpable of the two defendants. But
because of the federal habeas relief Kimble's sentence was reduced to near time served.
Watts, however, had a 40 year sentence. At first blush this result seems somewhat unfair
until one considers the totality of the circumstances that led the district court to grant
Kimble relief. See Kimble v. Cain, No. 07-0396, 2010 WL 2925804 (M.D. La. June 25,
2010). The key evidence against Kimble that supported his conviction was Watts'
statement against him—a statement that was never subjected to cross examination

1

because Watts did not testify. Meanwhile, there was significant evidence that pointed to
Watts being the actual perpetrator of the murder with Kimble being merely present at the
scene. Id. at *8. The district court in the Middle District of Louisiana detailed the
evidence pointing to Watts, and the inference to be drawn from that evidence is that the
jury confused the two defendants' respective roles in the murder. This alone would not
have been a basis to grant federal habeas relief to Kimble but because the district court
was persuaded that Kimble's conviction rested on Watts' statement, and because
admission of that statement violated the Confrontation Clause, habeas relief was
appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the petition of Daniel Watts for issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as
time-barred.
November 3, 2015.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2