Case Law U.S. v. Chandler, CR90-H-266-E.

U.S. v. Chandler, CR90-H-266-E.

Document Cited Authorities (4) Cited in (2) Related

HANCOCK, District Judge.

By Orders dated December 17, 1996, the Court set an evidentiary hearing to receive evidence regarding nine claims for relief asserted in Chandler's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and motion for a new trial. That hearing was held on February 10-12, 1997, with three additional witnesses' testimony presented by depositions taken February 12 and 19, 1997. These nine final claims for relief were briefed by the parties, and were deemed submitted for decision on March 17, 1997.

I. Claims related to the recantation of Charles Ray Jarrell

Four closely-related claims were the primary focus of the evidentiary hearing. Charles Ray Jarrell, Sr. ("Jarrell") testified at Chandler's trial in March 1991 that he had killed Marlin Shuler, and that his motivation for doing so was an offer of $500 by Chandler. (Tr. 3-219 to -28). Now, Jarrell has recanted that trial testimony, and maintains that, although he did kill Shuler, he did so because of resentment of Shuler's abuse of Jarrell's sister and mother. Jarrell now maintains that Chandler never offered him $500, or any money, for Shuler's murder. Further, Jarrell asserts that prosecutors and investigators fabricated the story regarding Chandler's offer of money for the murder, and forced Jarrell to testify in accordance with that fabrication by threatening Jarrell and his son, Billy Jo Jarrell, with the death penalty.

Jarrell's recantation forms the basis for claims III A 1 a and III C 1. Claim III A 1 a is a Giglio claim, which asserts that the government knowingly offered Jarrell's false testimony. Claim III C 1 asserts that Jarrell's recantation is newly discovered evidence that warrants a new trial under Fed. R.Crim.P. 33.

Also centered on Jarrell's alleged false trial testimony are claims III A 1 f and III C 6. Each of these claims asserts that Lieutenant Greg Cole, an ABI officer who participated in the investigation of the Shuler murder, testified falsely at Chandler's trial when he said that he had not threatened Jarrell with the electric chair. (Tr. 9-99, 9-112 to -13). Chandler claims that Cole did, in fact, make such threats, and that these threats were part of the design to force Jarrell to testify falsely at trial.

Because these four claims are so closely related, the Court addresses them together. The Court will first summarize the evidence presented by Chandler and the government relevant to these claims, followed by an analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions of law.

The main witness presented by Chandler regarding these claims was Jarrell himself. Jarrell testified at the evidentiary hearing that, on the morning of May 8, 1990, Shuler was at Jarrell's residence. (2/97 Tr. 23).1 Jarrell stated that Chandler arrived, driving a truck, with Bobby Steed in the passenger seat. (Id. at 24). Chandler then saw Shuler, and told Jarrell "this fellow is going to cause you and me a lot of trouble .... you ought to get rid of him." (Id. at 25). According to Jarrell's testimony at the hearing, Chandler's statement was not a request for Jarrell to murder Shuler, but rather an exhortation for Jarrell to stop associating with Shuler. (Id.). After this brief conversation, Chandler and Steed left. (Id.).

Soon thereafter, Jarrell and Shuler began drinking beer together. (Id. at 26). After exhausting Jarrell's on-hand supply, the two men drove to a store, purchased two more twelve-packs of beer, and went to Snow's Lake to engage in target practice with two pistols Jarrell had — a .380 and a 9mm. (Id. at 26-27). After arriving at Snow's Lake, Jarrell and Shuler drank the beer they had purchased, and took turns shooting the pistols at various objects. (Id. at 27). Then, Jarrell confronted Shuler about Shuler's abuse of Jarrell's sister and mother. (Id.). Shuler replied that Jarrell's mother and sister were bringing the abuse on themselves. (Id. at 28). An argument ensued, and Jarrell shot Shuler with the 9mm pistol, "just [as] a spur of the moment thing." (Id.). This first shot struck Shuler in the back. (Id.). Shuler fell down, and Jarrell shot him again behind the ear. (Id. at 30).2 Jarrell testified that the shooting had nothing to do with Chandler. (Id. at 31).

After killing Shuler, Jarrell returned to the convenience store and purchased another 12-pack of beer, and then proceeded to Chandler's house. (Id.). Jarrell attempted to borrow Chandler's truck to aid in disposal of Shuler's body, but Chandler insisted on accompanying Jarrell to Snow's Lake. (Id. at 32-33). Chandler and Jarrell transported Shuler's body to another location, buried it, and then returned to Chandler's house, stopping for more beer along the way. (Id. at 33). They then took Shuler's car to a remote location, and set it on fire. (Id.).

On May 23, 1990, Jarrell was interviewed by the Piedmont Police about Shuler. (Id. at 34; Defendant's Ex. 1).3 Jarrell told the police that he had been with Shuler drinking beer on May 8, but that Shuler had begun driving recklessly, and that Jarrell had insisted on getting out of the car. (Defendant's Ex. 1). According to Jarrell's May 23, 1990 statement, Jarrell had last seen Shuler when he got out of Shuler's car. (Id.).

Some time after May 23, Jarrell moved to Illinois, where he was arrested in connection with a car theft charge. (2/97 Tr. 35-36). While in custody in Illinois, Jarrell was interviewed twice by ABI Lieutenant Greg Cole and Calhoun County Deputy Sheriff Max Kirby. (Id. at 36). Both interviews occurred on September 20, 1990.

During the first interview, which occurred at 7:35 p.m., Jarrell told Cole and Kirby essentially the same story that he had previously told the Piedmont Police: Jarrell had gotten out of Shuler's car when Shuler began "driving crazy," and had not seen Shuler since. (Defendant's Ex. 2). At the end of the statement, Jarrell added, "no one has ever offered me any money to kill Marty Shuler. I never told anybody I killed him." (Id.).

Cole and Kirby disbelieved this story. (2/97 Tr. 38). So, they interviewed Jarrell again at 8:35 p.m. on September 20, 1990. (Defendant's Ex. 3). According to Jarrell, when the questioning resumed, Cole and Kirby told Jarrell that they had a statement from Chandler indicating that Chandler had paid Jarrell $10,000 or $20,000 to kill Shuler. (2/97 Tr. 38-39). Jarrell asked to see the statement, but the officers were unable to produce it. (Id.). Jarrell, according to his testimony, then told Cole and Kirby that the only money Chandler had ever offered him was $500 to "rough up" a boy who worked at a service station, whom Chandler thought was a "pervert." (Id. at 39-40). This, according to Jarrell, caused Cole and Kirby to conclude that Chandler had offered Jarrell $500, not $10,000 or $20,000, to kill Shuler. (Id. at 40).

Jarrell testified that, during this second episode of questioning, he and Deputy Kirby were "doing a lot of arguing," and Jarrell decided to "play this off as an accident." (Id. at 42). Thus, the second statement taken on September 20, 1990 begins by saying that Jarrell and Shuler "got drunk" and went to Snow's Lake. (Defendant's Ex. 3). It then states that "I [Jarrell] was firing my .380 automatic pistol. Marty wanted to shoot it. I turned around & the gun went off and shot Marty in the chest." (Id.). The statement goes on to recite that, after shooting Shuler, Jarrell enlisted Chandler's aid in disposing of the body and Shuler's automobile. (Id.). Jarrell recalled telling Cole and Kirby these things, and testified that they were true reflections of the statement he gave. (2/97 Tr. 44).

However, after the statement recites that Chandler took Jarrell home, the following sentence appears: "Ronnie Chandler offered me $500.00 to kill Marty Shuler and gave me a 9mm pistol to do it with." (Defendant's Ex. 3). The statement goes on to repeat that the shooting was accidental. (Id.). According to Jarrell, his statement to Cole and Kirby ended with the fact that Chandler took him home. (2/97 Tr. 44). Jarrell testified that, at the end of the statement, Cole and Kirby insisted that Chandler had offered Jarrell $500.00 for Shuler's murder and had given Jarrell a 9mm pistol for that purpose. (Id.). Jarrell continued to insist that he had killed Shuler with the .380 pistol, but Cole and Kirby were equally convinced that it was the 9mm supplied by Chandler. (Id. at 45). Jarrell signed the statement without reading it. (Id. at 46).

Shortly after Jarrell gave these two statement to Cole and Kirby, he was extradited to Alabama. (Id. at 46). His attorney, Bill Broome, arranged a deal for Jarrell, in which Jarrell would cooperate with law enforcement by assisting in the location of Shuler's body, and all of the charges against Billy Jo Jarrell would be dropped. (Id. at 48-49).4 Before the details of this deal were finalized, Jarrell purported to show officials the location of the body, but...

2 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 18-2, December 2001
Chandler v. United States: Does the Defense Attorney Have a Legal Obligation to Present Mitigation Evidence in Eleventh Circuit Death Penalty Cases?
"...in Atlanta, Georgia (July 23, 2001) (audiotape on file with author) [hereinafter Martin Interview]. [7]. Id. at 1309, aff'g en banc 957 F. Supp. 1505 (N.D. Ala. 1996), vacating & rev'g 193 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 121 S. Ct. 1217 (2001). [8]. See Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1361 (..."
Document | Vol. 64 Núm. 4, June 2001 – 2001
Death isn't welcome here: evaluating the federal death penalty in the context of a state constitutional objection to capital punishment.
"...89 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (E.D. Ark. 2000); United States v. Johnson, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9573 (N.D. Ill. 1997); United States v. Chandler, 957 F. Supp. 1505 (N.D. Ala. 1997); Associated Press, Prisoners Currently on Federal Death Row, CHATTANOOGA TIMES, Jun. 13, 1997, at A3, available at 1997 ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 18-2, December 2001
Chandler v. United States: Does the Defense Attorney Have a Legal Obligation to Present Mitigation Evidence in Eleventh Circuit Death Penalty Cases?
"...in Atlanta, Georgia (July 23, 2001) (audiotape on file with author) [hereinafter Martin Interview]. [7]. Id. at 1309, aff'g en banc 957 F. Supp. 1505 (N.D. Ala. 1996), vacating & rev'g 193 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 121 S. Ct. 1217 (2001). [8]. See Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1361 (..."
Document | Vol. 64 Núm. 4, June 2001 – 2001
Death isn't welcome here: evaluating the federal death penalty in the context of a state constitutional objection to capital punishment.
"...89 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (E.D. Ark. 2000); United States v. Johnson, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9573 (N.D. Ill. 1997); United States v. Chandler, 957 F. Supp. 1505 (N.D. Ala. 1997); Associated Press, Prisoners Currently on Federal Death Row, CHATTANOOGA TIMES, Jun. 13, 1997, at A3, available at 1997 ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex