Crawford v. Hall et al

Filing 24

ORDER on 23 Motion to Clarify. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 10/22/2020. (sko)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION

CHARLES RAY CRAWFORD

PETITIONER

v.

Cause No. 3:17-CV-105-SA-DAS

COMMISSIONER,
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
EARNEST LEE,
SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY

RESPONDENTS

ORDER
After entering an Order and Memorandum Opinion [20] in this case, the Court, on October
9, 2020, granted the Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability [22]. Now before the Court is the
Respondents’ Motion to Clarify [23], wherein the Respondents request that the Court clarify which
of the thirteen grounds for relief raised in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus the Petitioner is
permitted to appeal.
As noted above, the Petitioner raised thirteen grounds for relief in his Petition [1]. The
Court addressed each of those grounds in its Order and Memorandum Opinion. For the sake of
clarity, the Court hereby specifically finds that the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right as to all thirteen grounds which he raised. The Petitioner is granted
a certificate of appealability on all thirteen grounds. The Court will set forth below the specific
grounds, as they were framed in the Court’s Order and Memorandum Opinion:
(A) GROUND ONE – THE PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE TRIAL COURT
VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS WHEN IT DENIED HIS REQUEST FOR FUNDS
FOR EXPERT PSYCHIATRIC ASSISTNACE TO AID WITH THE
PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION OF AN INSANITY DEFENSE
(B) GROUND TWO – THE PETITIONER ARGUES HIS RIGHT TO
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WAS VIOLATED WHEN APPELLATE COUNSEL
1

NEGLECTED TO RAISE AS ERROR ON DIRECT APPEAL THE TRIAL
COURT’S VIOLATION OF PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT
EXPERT ASSISTANCE
(C) GROUND THREE – THE PETITIONER ARGUES HIS RIGHT TO
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WAS VIOLATED WHEN TRIAL
COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND PRESENT EXPERT
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE INSANITY DEFENSE
(D) GROUND FOUR – THE PETITIONER ARGUES HIS RIGHT TO
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WAS VIOLATED WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL
FAILED TO PRESENT A COHERENT THEORY OF DEFENSE
(E) GROUND FIVE – THE PETITIONER ARGUES HIS RIGHT TO
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WAS VIOLATED WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL
MADE PREJUDICIAL STATEMENTS ABOUT HIM THROUGHOUT TRIAL
(F) GROUND SIX – THE PETITIONER ARGUES HIS RIGHTS WERE
VIOLATED WHEN IT TOOK MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS TO DOCKET
HIS DIRECT APPEAL
(G) GROUND SEVEN – THE PETITOINER ARGUES HIS RIGHTS TO DUE
PROCESS AND EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WERE VIOLATED
WHEN THE TRIAL COURT ALLEGEDLY FORCED TRIAL COUNSEL TO
REPRESENT HIM DESPITE WHAT HE DESCRIBES AS A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST
(H) GROUNDS EIGHT AND NINE – THE PETITIONER ARGUES THAT
VARIOUS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE STATE’S PSYCHIATRIC
EXPERTS WERE PERMITTED TO EVALUATE HIM AND OFFER
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY AND WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO
OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THAT TESTIMONY
(I) GROUND TEN – THE PETITIONER ARGUES THE TRIAL COURT
VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN IT IMPROPERLY
SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO HIM
(J) GROUND ELEVEN – THE PETITIONER ARGUES THE TRIAL COURT
VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN IT PROHIBITED HIM
FROM TESTIFYING TO HIS THEORY OF DEFENSE
(K) GROUND TWELVE – THE PETITIONER ARGUES HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY PROSECUTORIAL
MISCONDUCT
(L) GROUND THIRTEEN – THE PETITIONER ARGUES THE COURT
2

VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN IT GAVE THE JURY
AN IMPROPER FLIGHT INSTRUCTION
As noted above, the Petitioner is granted a Certificate of Appealability as to all of these
grounds.
SO ORDERED, this the 22nd day of October, 2020.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3