Teleguz v. Pearson
Filing
130
OPINION AND ORDER directing hearing. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 12/11/12. (sc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
IVAN TELEGUZ,
Petitioner,
v.
EDDIE L. PEARSON, WARDEN,
SUSSEX I STATE PRISON,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 7:10CV00254
OPINION AND ORDER
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge
Matthew C. Stiegler, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Elizabeth Peiffer,
Virginia Capital Representation Resource Center, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Petitioner; Katherine Baldwin Burnett, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondent.
This capital habeas corpus case is before me on remand from the court of
appeals, which instructed me to conduct a thorough analysis of whether the
petitioner has made a gateway showing of actual innocence sufficient to excuse the
procedural default of certain constitutional claims.
I have concluded that an
evidentiary hearing is required so that I can properly determine the reliability of the
new evidence presented by the petitioner.
I
The court of appeals summarized the facts of the case as follows:
On February 9, 2006, a jury convicted [Ivan] Teleguz of capital
murder for hire after his former girlfriend, Stephanie Sipe, was found
dead in the apartment she shared with Teleguz’s infant son. Although
DNA evidence linked Michael Hetrick to the murder, Hetrick testified
at Teleguz’s trial that Teleguz had hired him to commit the crime.
Hetrick’s allegations were corroborated by two additional witnesses:
Edwin Gilkes and Aleksey Safanov. Gilkes testified that he had been
present at a birthday party where Teleguz hired Hetrick to commit the
murder. Gilkes also testified that he accompanied Hetrick to Sipe’s
apartment and waited outside for Hetrick during the murder. Gilkes
further claimed that he was afraid of Teleguz because he had heard
rumors that Teleguz was a member of the Russian mafia, as well as a
specific account of a murder committed by Teleguz in Ephrata,
Pennsylvania. According to Gilkes, Teleguz had shot a Russian
criminal in the street outside the Ephrata Recreation Center.
Safanov testified that Teleguz attempted to hire him to murder
Sipe so that Teleguz would no longer be required to pay child support.
Safanov also testified that Teleguz had spoken to him after the
murder, complaining that “the black man” he had hired to kill Sipe
had left blood at the scene, and offering Safanov money if he would
“eliminate [the] killer.” J.A. 325. Although other evidence was
presented at trial, the Supreme Court of Virginia explained that, “in
order to return a guilty verdict, the jury had to believe the testimony of
Safanov, Gilkes, and Hetrick.” Teleguz v. Commonwealth, 273 Va.
458, 643 S.E.2d 708, 728 (2007) (“Teleguz I ”).
On February 14, 2006, the jury recommended a death sentence
after finding that two statutory aggravating factors were present:
vileness and future dangerousness. Following Teleguz’s appeal, the
Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed his conviction and sentence.
Teleguz I, 643 S.E.2d at 732. He then filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus in state court, which the Supreme Court of Virginia
dismissed. Teleguz v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 279 Va. 1, 688
S.E.2d 865, 879 (2010). On November 12, 2010, Teleguz filed a
-2-
petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, asserting various grounds for
relief. Some of Teleguz’s claims had been adjudicated on the merits
by the Supreme Court of Virginia, while others had been procedurally
defaulted. Teleguz argued that, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s
decision in Schlup[v. Delo], 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851 [(1995)], the
district court should consider the merits of his procedurally defaulted
claims because new and reliable evidence established that he was
actually innocent of Sipe’s murder (“Schlup gateway innocence
claim”).
In support of his Schlup gateway innocence claim, Teleguz
offered several categories of evidence. First, he presented affidavits of
third-party witnesses who claimed that Teleguz did not attend the
birthday party during which he was alleged to have hired Hetrick to
kill Sipe. Second, he offered police reports and affidavits to establish
that no murder occurred outside the Ephrata Recreation Center, that
no murder that occurred in Ephrata prior to Teleguz’s trial remains
unsolved, and that the only murder involving a Russian victim
occurred at a private residence. Third, Teleguz presented affidavits in
which Gilkes and Safanov recanted the testimony they offered at
Teleguz’s trial. Gilkes now claims that he was coerced into testifying
against Teleguz by the prosecutor, who “made clear that if [he] did
not, [he] would have been the one on death row today, not Teleguz.”
J.A. 1281. Gilkes executed affidavits in both 2008 and 2010 denying
that Teleguz hired Hetrick to kill Sipe. Safanov currently resides in
Kazakhstan, but was contacted by lawyers from Teleguz’s defense
team. According to their affidavits, Safanov now insists that he never
discussed Sipe’s murder with Teleguz and agreed to testify during
Teleguz’s trial only because he believed that if he cooperated with the
prosecutor, he would be eligible for a visa allowing him to stay in the
United States despite pending federal gun charges.
Teleguz v. Pearson, 689 F.3d 322, 325-27 (4th Cir. 2012).
I denied Teleguz’s petition for habeas relief on August 1, 2011. The court of
appeals granted a certificate of appealability to determine whether I abused my
-3-
discretion in denying Teleguz an evidentiary hearing on his Schlup gateway
innocence claim. The court of appeals has now remanded the case so that I may
conduct a rigorous Schlup analysis. See id. at 330. The court of appeals did not
direct me to conduct an evidentiary hearing, but it strongly suggested that a hearing
may be necessary to assess the credibility of the recanting witnesses. See id. at
330-32.
The parties have fully briefed the Schlup issue, both sides arguing that an
evidentiary hearing is unnecessary and that I can decide the petitioner’s Schlup
claim on the cold record. I have heard oral argument from the parties. For the
reasons stated below, I will order an evidentiary hearing to assist me in evaluating
the reliability of the newly presented evidence.
II
Federal habeas review is generally precluded when a claim is procedurally
defaulted before the state courts.
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750
(1991). A procedural default will be excused, however, where the petitioner can
show a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Id. A petitioner may assert that his
case falls into the narrow class of cases implicating a fundamental miscarriage of
justice by arguing that he is actually innocent of the crime of which he was
convicted. Schlup, 513 U.S. 298, 314-15. To show actual innocence that would
-4-
excuse procedural default, a petitioner must show that an alleged constitutional
error probably resulted in his conviction although he was actually innocent. Id. at
327 (citing Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496 (1986)).
A Schlup actual
innocence claim allows a habeas petitioner to overcome procedural defaults by
presenting reliable new evidence tending to show that he is innocent of the crime
for which he was convicted. To succeed on a Schlup claim, the petitioner must
show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror could have found him
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the new evidence. Schlup, 513 U.S. at
327.
In assessing a petitioner’s claim of actual innocence, the court must consider
all relevant evidence, old and new, including evidence that was excluded or
unavailable at trial. Id. Where the newly presented evidence calls into question
the credibility of witnesses who testified at trial, “the habeas court may have to
make some credibility assessments.” Id. at 330. An evidentiary hearing is not
required, however, “if development of the claim would not establish actual
innocence.” Bannister v. Delo, 100 F.3d 610, 617 (8th Cir. 1996)
In this case, the court of appeals instructed me to “consider the particular
facts raised by the petitioner in support of his actual innocence claim in
determining whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.”
331. The court further explained:
-5-
Teleguz, 689 F.3d at
[A]n evidentiary hearing may be necessary to assess whether
recantations are credible, or whether “‘the circumstances surrounding
the recantation[s] suggest [that they are] the result of coercion, bribery
or misdealing.’” [Wolfe v. Johnson, 565 F.3d 140, 169 (4th Cir.
2009)] (quoting United States v. Johnson, 487 F.2d 1278, 1279 (4th
Cir.1973)). This type of credibility determination, required for Schlup
analysis, may be more difficult on a cold record. Cf. Coleman [v.
Hardy, 628 F.3d 314, 320–21 (7th Cir. 2010)] (remanding for an
evidentiary hearing to “evaluate the reliability” of the recantation of a
codefendant whose “reputation for honesty is weak”). The district
court should also consider the “heightened need for fairness in the
administration of death[,] ... born of the appreciation that death truly is
different from all other punishments a society inflicts upon its
citizens.” Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. 1141, 1149, 114 S.Ct. 1127, 127
L. Ed. 2d 435 (1994) (Blackmun, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
Id.
In light of these instructions, I find that an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
This is not a case in which the new evidence of innocence is in the form of
irrefutable scientific information or other facts susceptible of evaluation and
resolution on the record alone. Live testimony, subject to cross examination and
questions from the court, is in my opinion necessary to determine the accuracy and
reliability of the claim of actual innocence.
III
For the foregoing reasons, an evidentiary hearing will be promptly scheduled
on the petitioner’s gateway claim of actual innocence.
-6-
It is so ORDERED.
ENTER: December 11, 2012
/S/ JAMES P. JONES
United States District Judge
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?