Habeas Corpus - Second Circuit Preview Week of Feb. 1, 2010

February 1, 2010

Jones v. Armstrong, 00-2527-pr

• Panel: Katzmann, Lynch, Chin, DJ
• Dist. Ct Dec: Petition Denied; 99-cv-1545 (D. Conn. June 30, 2000) (CFD)
• COA: Second Circuit

Issues: From the order granting a COA:

In addition to any issues counsel deems appropriate, counsel should consider (1) whether on direct appeal Jones adequately presented the claims, which the district court determined were unexhausted, to the Connecticut supreme court based on the brief Jones filed in that court prior to the court's transfer of his case to the appellate court; (2) if not, whether Jones's unexhausted claims should be considered exhausted because of procedural default, see Bossett v. Walker, 41 F.3d 825, 828-29 (2d Cir. 1994); (3) if so, whether petitioner has shown (a) cause and prejudice for such procedural default, see Grey v. Hoke 933 F.2d 117, 120-21 (2d Cir. 1991) or (b) actual innocence, see Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 325 (1995); and (4) if so, whether to remand Jones's case the district court for further proceedings on the merits of Jones's claims.

Notes: You are reading the docket number correctly -- this appeal was originally filed in 2000. It really is one of the wackiest docket sheets I have ever read. First, there was an Anders motion (assigned counsel argued that the appeal had no non-frivolous issues). The court denied the motion, but relieved the attorney, noting that in his motion he did not even address the issues on which a COA was granted.

After new counsel was assigned, the appeal was stayed for about three years while the petitioner pursued a state habeas corpus petition. This second attorney was eventually removed from the case (the docket sheet does not explain why). But this led to a motion from petitioner asking that the attorney be allowed back onto the case. That motion was denied.

And that motion was one of several unusual motions from petitioner. Those included a request for a personal typewriter and legal phone calls and "to compel New Haven Police Department to conduct a finger and palm Print comparison between prints lifted from the crime scene and those of a known Individual." All denied.

Finally, the case was calendared for argument last year and then the calendar date got adjourned.

In many ways, it seems like a miracle that this case is finally getting argued.