The U.S. Supreme Court on March 31 dismissed a Missouri death row inmate’s petition seeking review of his conviction for the 2005 murder of a highway patrolman.
For a petition for certiorari, or review, to be granted, at least four of the nine justices must vote to approve it. Approval is normally followed by oral argument.
Sotomayor dissented from the denial of the petition filed by Lance Shockley, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the killing of Sgt. Carl DeWayne Graham Jr., an investigator for the Missouri State Highway Patrol.
Shockley argued that the jury that convicted him was improperly influenced by one of the jurors who wrote a novel in which a person seeks revenge after his wife was killed in a drunk driving incident.
He wrote that his appeal should have been allowed to move forward because during his appeal process federal appellate judges had voted to grant what is called a certificate of appealability.
If a federal court of appeals or a member of one of those courts or a federal district judge issues a certificate, an appeal may move forward. A certificate may be issued when a petition makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” according to the petition.
At the certificate-of-appealability stage, “the only question is whether the applicant has shown that ‘jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,’” the petition said, quoting the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Miller-El v. Cockrell.
“The courts of appeals are deeply divided 5 to 4 on whether a [certificate of appealability] must issue under that standard if at least one circuit judge votes to grant the application to appeal—as happened here,” according to the petition.
When local police and the Missouri State Highway Patrol arrived at the scene, “they found J.B. slumped over in the truck’s passenger seat, beer cans and a tequila bottle inside the truck, and a blood smear on the outside of the truck, above the passenger-side wheel,” the brief said.
Graham questioned Shockley the evening of the crash. Shockley did not acknowledge his involvement in the wreck even though he admitted to a couple, identified as P.N. and I.N., who had helped him after the crash, that he was the driver, the brief said.
Months afterward, Graham visited I.N.’s workplace, telling I.N. that Shockley admitted his role in the crash. I.N. advised Graham that Shockley wrecked the truck. I.N. got in touch with Shockley who said he never made a confession to Graham, according to the brief.
Shockley obtained Graham’s home address and waited at the patrolman’s home for Graham to return. Shockley fired upon Graham from behind with a rifle. The bullet broke through the officer’s protective vest and damaged his spinal cord, paralyzing him. Shockley then shot the injured Graham twice with a shotgun, killing him. A jury later found Shockley guilty of first-degree murder and, after hearing further evidence, recommended the death penalty. The judge accepted the recommendation and sentenced Shockley to death, the brief said.
The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence on Aug. 13, 2013. The court did not accept “Shockley’s claim that the trial court committed plain error by failing to hold a hearing, or to declare a mistrial, based on an allegation that Juror 58, who had written a novel involving brutal revenge for the death of the protagonist’s wife in a drunk driving accident, had improperly influenced other jurors,” according to the brief.
The Missouri Supreme Court returned to the case on April 16, 2019, and denied relief. The court rejected a series of claims regarding Juror 58’s alleged misconduct, denying the claim that defense counsel failed to provide effective representation by not calling witnesses at a motion for a new trial based on the juror’s behavior. The court also denied the claim that Juror 58 was guilty of juror misconduct, the brief said.
Shockley then filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court, which was denied on Sept. 29, 2023. A habeas application is a request for a court to review a person’s detention or imprisonment. It can be used to contest a criminal conviction.
The court held Shockley deliberately delayed resolution of the petition and dismissed the claims about Juror 58. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, holding the issues raised were without merit and that further proceedings were not justified 17 years after the murder, the brief said.
The court also ordered counsel to show cause why they should not be punished for allegedly violating federal and Missouri court rules. On Feb. 10, 2024, the court found Shockley’s counsel made “frivolous arguments and fallacious assertions,” according to the brief.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit declined to issue a certificate of appealability, with one judge dissenting. The full Eighth Circuit denied rehearing, with two judges dissenting, the brief said.
Sotomayor objected to the Supreme Court’s decision not to grant Shockley’s petition.
She cited a federal law that states a prisoner seeking to appeal a denial of his habeas application is allowed to do so only if “a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.”
Several federal courts of appeals have construed that to mean that a certificate must be issued as long as “one of the judges to whom the application was referred” voted to grant it. However, some appeals courts have held that an appeals court panel may withhold a certificate even if “a circuit … judge” on the panel votes to issue a certificate, she wrote.
“That latter practice deprived petitioner Lance Shockley of an appeal in this case,” Sotomayor wrote.
The justice wrote she would have granted Shockley’s Supreme Court petition to resolve the judicial split and decide if appeals courts “can dismiss an appeal after a judge votes to grant a certificate,” she wrote.
Congress specifically provided that “a circuit justice or judge” is allowed to provide permission to appeal, Sotomayor added.
The Epoch Times reached out for comment to Shockley’s attorney, Daniel Woofter of Russell and Woofter in Washington, and Missouri Assistant Attorney General Michael Spillane.
No replies were received by publication time.
