Martin v. Dunn

1

GEORGE MARTIN, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-460-TFM-MU

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

January 18, 2024

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

P BRADLEY MURRAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

George Martin (Martin), a former Alabama State Trooper and current prisoner of the State of Alabama, is serving a sentence of life without parole for the murder of his wife Hammoleketh Jackson Martin (Hammoleketh). Martin has petitioned the Court through counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2254 to challenge the conviction that led to his current incarceration. (Doc. 1).

Martin's case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for entry of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and General Local Rule 72(a)(2)(R). The undersigned has reviewed the parties' filings and finds there is sufficient information before the Court to resolve the issues presented, and no evidentiary hearing is required. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that Martin's request for habeas relief be denied.

I. Factual Background and Relevant Procedural History ^[1]

Around 11:30 p.m. on October 8, 1995, law enforcement officers from the Mobile Police Department and firefighters from the Mobile Fire Department were called to the scene of a vehicle fire in an isolated area of southern Mobile County, Alabama. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers and firefighters observed a 1991 Ford Escort burning and saw what appeared to be charred human remains inside the vehicle. The victim was later identified as Hammoleketh Martin, George Martin's wife. An autopsy determined Hammoleketh's cause of death to be homicide. After a lengthy criminal investigation, Martin was arrested in 1999-nearly four years after Hammoleketh's death-and charged with one count of capital murder for killing Hammoleketh for pecuniary gain, namely, to recover proceeds from several insurance policies.

A. Martin's First Trial and Direct Appeal

Martin's case proceeded to a jury trial in May 2000 in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, where the State presented the following circumstantial evidence against him:

The investigations revealed that the fire was intentionally set. According to the evidence, the fire started in the right rear passenger compartment and spread forward. The minimal damage to the front of the vehicle precluded any conclusion that the impact of the car with a tree in the area could have started the fire; rather, the evidence was uncontroverted that the scene was consistent with a staged wreck.

A traffic homicide investigator from the Alabama Department of Public Safety testified that he examined the vehicle and the scene in question. He conducted speed calculations of a vehicle and analyzed the kind of force that would have been necessary to cause such a fire. He concluded that the fire was not an accident and the collision of the vehicle with a tree did not produce sufficient force to start the fire.

Martin when initially notified by officers of the Mobile Police Department that his car had been found with a body in it, stated that he had last seen his wife at approximately 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. that evening. He stated she left the house without telling him where she was going and that he fell asleep watching a football game on television. He initially stated that he had awakened at approximately 1:00 or 1:30 in the morning and, after noticing that his wife was not home, decided to go look for her.

The State introduced evidence of several inconsistencies in Martin's various statements. Among the inconsistencies were the time that he awoke to discover his wife missing, that the victim carried a gasoline can in her automobile with her because the gas gauge did not work, and that a BIC lighter found at the scene was used by his wife, the victim, as a flashlight because the dome light in her car did not work. The evidence also established that the defendant was less than honest when questioned about the existence of life insurance policies insuring the life of his wife, Hammoleketh Martin. Though Martin acknowledged the existence of a policy insuring his wife's life for $200,000, he lied when he stated there were no other policies. In particular, another policy insuring the life of Hammoleketh Martin for $150,000 was introduced into evidence and, according to the State's evidence, this amount was collectible only if Hammoleketh Martin died in a passenger vehicle.

The State also introduced evidence of a Traffic Accident Investigation Report prepared by Martin approximately one year prior to the death of his wife. The report involved a traffic accident in which an automobile left the road, hit a tree, and burst into flames. The State contended that the report of this incident, which was Martin's version of what occurred, was strikingly similar to the occurrences of one year prior.

The State linked the evidence of the insurance proceeds with the purported financial difficulties of the defendant. According to the prosecution's testimony, Martin's financial condition had deteriorated to the point where he was approaching bankruptcy.

State's witness James Taylor also testified that he saw an African American male driving a state-trooper car in the vicinity of the crime scene on the night of the murder. Moreover, during closing statements, the State argued: (1) that Martin, who is African American, fled the crime scene on a bicycle he had planted there earlier; (2) that, other than Martin's relatives, no one had ever seen a gasoline can in Hammoleketh's vehicle; and (3) that the jury could infer from Taylor's testimony that Martin was the state trooper Taylor had seen.

State v. Martin, 287 So.3d 355, 357-58 (Ala.Crim.App.2017), rev'd sub nom., Ex parte State, 287 So.3d 384 (Ala. 2018) (internal citations, quotations, and alterations omitted). In response, Martin maintained he did not kill Hammoleketh and that he did not know who, if anyone, did. Martin theorized that Hammoleketh's death could have been the result of an accident, that an unknown person carjacked and killed Hammoleketh, or that Hammoleketh committed suicide. Id.

The jury convicted Martin of capital murder for pecuniary gain pursuant to Alabama Code § 13A-5-40(a)(7) and recommended life imprisonment without parole. The trial judge overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Martin to death. Martin's conviction and death sentence were ultimately affirmed on direct appeal. See Martin v. State, 931 So.2d 736, 740-41 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), rev'd in part, 931 So.2d 759 (Ala. 2004), aff'd on remand, 931 So.2d 774 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).

B. Martin's State Postconviction Proceedings

After his capital murder conviction and death sentence were upheld on direct appeal, Martin sought postconviction relief pursuant to Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. Those proceedings were long and complex, and a full recitation of them is not necessary here.^[2] But what is relevant here is that Martin's Rule 32 proceedings included a hard-fought discovery dispute which ultimately revealed that, prior to Martin's first trial, the State of Alabama (“the State”) violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by suppressing the following evidence from Martin and his defense team:

Statements by Witness James Taylor Potentially Implicating Trooper Grayling Williams: An eyewitness named James Taylor told law enforcement during the investigation that he was in the area of the crime scene the night Hammoleketh died and that he had seen a Black state trooper in the area too. At Martin's first trial, the State relied heavily on Taylor's statement as circumstantial evidence placing Martin at the crime scene. The Rule 32 proceedings revealed the State had suppressed an additional statement from Taylor that the person he saw was “a big man who filled up the car” (which was relevant because Martin is only 5'6” tall) and that Taylor had separately identified Trooper Grayling Williams not George Martin, from a photographic lineup of Black male troopers.

Statements by Hammoleketh's Sister Regarding a Gas Can in Hammoleketh's Car: Martin maintained throughout the investigation that Hammoleketh's death was accidental and could have been caused by a gas can Hammoleketh sometimes carried in her car because her gas gauge was broken. At Martin's first trial, the State argued that no one other than Martin's relatives had ever seen a gasoline can in Hammoleketh's vehicle. The Rule 32 proceedings revealed the State had suppressed a statement by Terri Jean Jackson, Hammoleketh's sister, that she had also seen a gas can in Hammoleketh's car approximately one month before Hammoleketh's death.

Statements by Witness Norma Broach Potentially Implicating Another Suspect: An eyewitness named Norma Broach told law enforcement during the investigation that she was at a gas station near the crime scene the night of Hammoleketh's death and that she had watched a white male fill up two large gas cans and then move a heavy object from a small black car into the passenger seat of the cab of a camper truck. The Rule 32 proceedings revealed that Broach's eyewitness account was withheld from Martin prior to his first trial.

Anonymous Calls to Police Implicating a Different Suspect: During the investigation, law enforcement received two anonymous phone calls suggesting that Trooper Grayling Williams was involved in Hammoleketh's murder. Evidence relating to these calls was suppressed from Martin prior to his first trial.

Evidence of Bicycle Track Investigation: One of the State's theories at Martin's first trial was that Martin had fled the

...