Strickler v. Greene

Facts

Whitlock, an African-American sophomore at James Madison University, borrowed a 1986 blue Mercury Lynx from her boyfriend, who worked in the Valley Shopping Mall. She left her apartment, intending to return the car at the mall. She did not return the car and was not again seen alive by any of her friends or family. P's mother testified that she had driven P and Henderson to Harrisonburg. She also testified that P always carried a hunting knife that had belonged to his father. Two witnesses, a friend of Henderson's and a security guard, saw P and Henderson at the mall that afternoon. The security guard was informed that two men, one of whom she identified at trial as P, were attempting to steal a car in the parking lot. She had them under observation during the remainder of the afternoon but lost sight of them. A witness saw the blue Lynx at a location in Augusta County about 25 miles from Harrisonburg and a short distance from the cornfield where Whitlock's body was later found. Massie identified P as the driver of the vehicle; he also saw a white woman in the front seat and another man in the back. Massie noticed that the car was muddy and that it turned off Route 340 onto a dirt road. Another witness saw the Lynx at Buddy's Market, with two men sitting in the front seat. The witness did not see anyone else in the car. At approximately 9 p.m., P and Henderson arrived at Dice's Inn, a bar in Staunton, Virginia, where they stayed for about four or five hours. They danced with several women, including four prosecution witnesses: Donna Kay Tudor, Nancy Simmons, Debra Sievers, and Carolyn Brown. While there, Henderson gave Nancy Simmons a watch that had belonged to Whitlock. P spent most of his time with Tudor, who was later arrested for grand larceny based on her possession of the blue Lynx. Tudor saw some blood on P's jeans and a cut on his knuckle. Tudor testified that she, Henderson, and D left Dice's after it closed to search for marijuana. Henderson was driving the blue Lynx, with P and Tudor in back. Tudor overheard a crude conversation describing the assault and murder of a black person with a 'rock crusher.' Tudor stated that P made a statement that implied that he had killed someone, so they 'wouldn't give him no more trouble.' While driving around, P took out his knife and threatened to stab Henderson because he was driving recklessly. P then began driving. P drove Henderson to Kenneth Workman's apartment. Henderson went inside to get something, and P and Tudor drove off without waiting for him. Workman testified that Henderson had blood on his pants and stated he had killed a black person. P and Tudor eventually went to Virginia Beach, where they spent the rest of the week. P gave Tudor pearl earrings that Whitlock had been wearing when she was last seen. Tudor saw Whitlock's driver's license and bank card in the glove compartment of the car. Tudor testified that P unsuccessfully attempted to use Whitlock's bank card when they were in Virginia Beach. P and Tudor abandoned the blue Lynx and began to uncover evidence. Police recovered a bag at P's mother's house that Tudor testified she and P had left when they returned from Virginia Beach. The bag contained three identification cards belonging to Whitlock and a black 'tank top' shirt that was later found to have human blood and semen stains on it. A farmer found Henderson's wallet and a search of the area led to the discovery of Whitlock's frozen, nude, and battered body. A 69-pound rock, spotted with blood, lay nearby. Whitlock's death was caused by 'multiple blunt force injuries to the head.' She died fewer than six hours after she had last eaten. A number of Caucasian hair samples were found at the scene, three of which were probably P's. Anne Stoltzfus testified that she saw P, Henderson, and a blonde girl inside the Harrisonburg mall and that she later witnessed their abduction of Whitlock in the parking lot. She did not call the police, but a week and a half after the incident she discussed it with classmates at James Madison University, where both she and Whitlock were students. One of them called the police. The next night a detective visited her, and the following morning she went to the police station and told her story to Detective Claytor. She photo identified P and Henderson 'with absolute certainty' but stated that she had a slight reservation about her identification of the blonde woman. At trial, Stoltzfus testified how she ran into the trio at and around Music Land three times in one evening. At trial, Stoltzfus identified Whitlock from a picture as the driver of the car and pointed to Ds as 'Mountain Man.' When asked if pretrial publicity about the murder had influenced her identification, Stoltzfus replied 'absolutely not.' She explained: 'First of all, I have an exceptionally good memory. I had very close contact with P and he made an emotional impression with me because of his behavior and I, he caught my attention and I paid attention. So I have absolutely no doubt of my identification.' D did not produce any other witnesses to the abduction. Stoltzfus' daughter did not testify. Notes taken by Detective Claytor during his interviews with Stoltzfus, and letters written by Stoltzfus to Claytor cast serious doubt on Stoltzfus' confident assertion of her 'exceptionally good memory.' The note indicates that Stoltzfus could not identify the black female victim. The only person Stoltzfus apparently could identify at this time was the white female. One letter states that she had not remembered being at the mall, but that her daughter had helped jog her memory. 'I have a very vague memory that I'm not sure of. It seems as if the wild guy that I saw had come running through the door and up to a bus as the bus was pulling off . . . . Then the guy I saw came running up to the black girl's window? Were those 2 memories the same person?' A note to Claytor captioned 'My Impressions of 'The Car,'' contains three paragraphs describing the size of the car and comparing it with Stoltzfus' Volkswagen Rabbit, but not mentioning the license plate number that she vividly recalled at the trial. Another note states that after spending several hours with Whitlock's boyfriend, 'looking at current photos,' she had identified Whitlock 'beyond a shadow of a doubt.' By the time of trial, her identification had been expanded to include a description of her clothing and her appearance as a college kid who was 'singing' and 'happy.' Another note thanks Detective Claytor for his 'patience with my sometimes muddled memories.' She states that if the student at school had not called the police, 'I never would have made any of the associations that you helped me make.' In yet another note Stoltzfus commented: 'So where is the 3x4 card? . . . It would have been very nice if I could have remembered all this at the time and had simply gone to the police with the information. But I totally wrote this off as a trivial episode of college kids carrying on and proceeded with my own full-time college load at JMU. . . . Monday, January 15th. I was cleaning out my car and found the 3x4 card. I tore it into little pieces and put it in the bottom of a trash bag.' The prosecutor maintained an open file policy, which gave P's counsel access to all of the evidence in the prosecutor's files. P did not file a pretrial motion for the discovery of possibly exculpatory evidence. P was convicted and sentenced to death. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Eventually, new counsel was appointed who filed an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based, in part, on trial counsel's failure to file a Brady motion. The Commonwealth asserted that such a motion was unnecessary because the prosecutor had maintained an open file policy. The Circuit Court dismissed the petition, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. P filed habeas corpus in federal court. This led to the discovery of the notes, letters, and memos in Detective Claytor’s filed regarding Stoltzfus. The District Court concluded that the failure to disclose was sufficiently prejudicial to undermine confidence in the jury's verdict. It granted summary judgment to P and granted the writ. The Court of Appeals held that the Brady claim was procedurally defaulted because the factual basis for the claim was available to him at the time he filed his state habeas petition. Given that he knew that Stoltzfus had been interviewed by Harrisonburg police officers, the court opined that 'reasonably competent counsel would have sought discovery in state court' of the police files, and that in response to this 'simple request, it is likely the state court would have ordered the production of the files.' The Court of Appeals also held that P could not establish prejudice because 'the Stoltzfus materials would have provided little or no help . . . in either the guilt or sentencing phases of the trial.' The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.