Washington v. Marshall

1

CHARLIE WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. STEVE MARSHALL,^[1] et al., Respondents.

No. 2:14-cv-60-ECM [WO]

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

September 23, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

EMILY C. MARKS, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 27, 2014, Petitioner Charlie Washington (“Petitioner” or “Washington”) filed this federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2254, challenging his convictions for capital murder and death sentence in connection with the January 2003 murders of Julian and Florence McKinnon.^[2] The case is fully briefed and ripe for review. Upon thorough consideration of the entire record, and for the reasons set forth below Washington is not entitled to habeas relief, and his petition is due to be denied without an evidentiary hearing.

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................3

III. BACKGROUND ......................................................................3

A. Guilt Phase of Washington's Trial ......................................................................3

B. Penalty Phase of Washington's Trial ......................................................................8

IV. POST-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ......................................................................10

A. Direct Appeal ......................................................................10

B. Rule 32 Proceedings ......................................................................11

C. The § 2254 Habeas Petition ......................................................................16

V. STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................17

A. Exhaustion and Procedural Default ......................................................................17

B. AEDPA Review of State Court Decisions ......................................................................20

VI. DISCUSSION ......................................................................23

A. Washington's Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ......................................................................23

1. Washington's IAC Claims Against Trial Counsel at the Guilt Phase ......................................................................27

2. Washington's IAC Claims Against Trial Counsel at the Penalty Phase ......................................................................64

3. Washington's IAC Claims Against Appellate Counsel ......................................................................116

B. Washington's Brady Claims ......................................................................119

1. The Merritt Claim ......................................................................112

2. The DNA Report Claim ......................................................................124

C. Washington's Claim that Alabama's Capital Sentencing Scheme Violates Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) ......................................................................128

D. Washington's Claim that Alabama's Method of Execution is Unconstitutional . ......................................................................130

VII. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ......................................................................132

VIII. CONCLUSION......................................................................132

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Jurisdiction and venue over Washington's petition for writ of habeas corpus are proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) because he was convicted and sentenced in state court in Elmore County, Alabama, which is within the Middle District of Alabama.

III. BACKGROUND

A. Guilt Phase of Washington's Trial

An Elmore County, Alabama grand jury indicted Washington on five counts of capital murder in connection with the murders of Julian and Florence McKinnon. These murders were made capital because they occurred during the commission of a robbery in the first degree, see ALA. CODE § 13A-5-40(a)(2); they occurred during the commission of a burglary in the first degree, see id. § 13A-5-40(a)(4); and they were committed pursuant to one course of conduct, see id. § 13A-5-40(a)(10). The following excerpt from the trial court's Sentencing Order succinctly states the relevant facts of the case:

The bodies of Julian and Florence McKinnon were found in their home located at 2810 Tanglewood Drive, Millbrook, Alabama on January 22, 2003. Julian McKinnon was found upstairs in the master bedroom and Florence McKinnon was found at the bottom of the stairs. Both had been struck in the head with a hard dense object of some sort and died as a result of blunt force trauma.

Later that day, the Defendant, Charlie Washington, was located with a prostitute in a motel room in Montgomery, Alabama. He was in the possession of the McKinnons' VW Jetta automobile that had been loaned to him by Julian McKinnon on January 20, 2003, and approximately $8000.00. Of that $8000.00, approximately $6300.00 in cash and coins were found in the car and in the Defendant's motel room.

The Defendant, Julian McKinnon's handyman and helper for several years, drove Mr. McKinnon from Millbrook to Clio, Alabama on January 20, 2003. While in Clio, Mr. McKinnon and Joe Carpenter closed a land deal for which Mr. Carpenter paid Mr. McKinnon $10,000.00 in cash. Of the $10,000,00 cash, over $7000.00 was paid in 100- dollar bills; the balance in 20's and 10's. At some time between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., after returning to Millbrook from Clio, the Defendant left the McKinnons' residence in their VW Jetta.

A few hours later, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Anthony Smith saw the Defendant at the “big house” in Montgomery, Alabama and hooked the defendant up with a prostitute. Washington stayed there for a little while and then left. When he returned he gave Mr. Smith a 100-dollar bill for watching his car. The next morning, January 21, 2003, the Defendant was seen at the “big house” in the company of two females smoking crack cocaine. According to Adreanne Merritt, whom the Defendant was with when located by the police, she and Mr. Washington bought and smoked some $400.00 to $700.00 worth of crack cocaine from the afternoon of January 21 until they were apprehended at John's Motel on the afternoon of January 22.

The last time that anyone spoke with the McKinnons was approximately 8:00 p.m. on January 20, 2003 when Washington's friend, Ernestine Howard, called looking for him. The McKinnons' telephone line gave a busy signal for everyone else who tried to call from the morning of January 21 until the telephone in the McKinnons' bedroom was placed back on the hook after their bodies were discovered.

On January 22, 2003, Joe Carpenter rode from Clio to the McKinnons' house in Millbrook arriving at about 9:00 a.m. No one would answer the door, nor would anyone answer the telephone. Pursuant to the McKinnon's daughter's instructions, Mr. Carpenter located the spare key and entered the McKinnons' home where he found Florence McKinnon lying in a pool of blood at the bottom of the stairs.

Law Enforcement personnel responded and the investigation began. It was determined that entry into the house was gained through a broken windowpane and raised window. The contents of Mrs. McKinnon's purse were found scattered all over the kitchen. Other items were strown around the kitchen. The den was ransacked, as was the master bedroom upstairs. In addition to Mr. McKinnon's body, coins were found lying on the bed and floor in the master bedroom.

No quantity of cash was found in the McKinnons' home. However, hair consistent with that of a black male was found in Julian McKinnon's clenched hand. Charlie Washington's blood was found near a doorknob on the dining room/laundry room door. Julian and Florence McKinnon's DNA was found in a bloodstain on Charlie Washington's shirt and Julian McKinnon's DNA was found in a bloodstain on Charlie Washington's sock.

(Doc. 20-32 at 3-5).^[3]

Washington's trial began on January 12, 2004. He was represented by court-appointed counsel D. Wayne Perdue (“Perdue”) and W. Kendrick “Kenny” James (“James”). Some of the evidence presented at trial is summarized below.

The prosecution put on a number of witnesses, including Matt McAlister (“McAlister”), a trace evidence examiner at the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (“ADFS”). After being accepted as an expert in trace examination, McAlister testified about his examination and comparison of hairs found in Julian McKinnon's (“Mr. McKinnon”) left hand and hairs from Washington's comb. (Doc. 20-6 at 79-90).^[4] DNA testing of the hairs was not conducted, but the hairs were observed and compared under a microscope. McAlister took several hairs “and mounted them on microscope slides for microscopic observation and comparison,” looking for similarities in categories like color, diameter, pigment, and size. (Doc 20-6 at 84). McAlister explained that “hair examination is not an exact science,” but that hairs from different racial groups have different properties, which allowed him to determine whether each of the hairs came from a Caucasian, an African-American, or an Asian person. (Id. at 85-86). Although he was unable to say with certainty whether the hair from Mr. McKinnon's left hand was in fact Washington's hair, McAlister determined that at least one of these hairs was “consistent” with Washington's hair in both size and shape. (Id. at 87, 89). On cross-examination by James, McAlister acknowledged that the hair from Mr. McKinnon's left hand “could be from any African American person.” (Id. at 90)....