Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Jessie Derrell
WILLIAMS
Classification: Murderer
Characteristics:
Rape
- Sexual mutilation
Number of victims: 1
Date of murder:
January 11,
1983
Date of birth:
May 3,
1951
Victim profile: Karon Ann Pierce
(female, 18)
Method of murder: Stabbing
with knife
Location: Jackson County, Mississippi, USA
Status:
Executed
by lethal injection in Mississippi on December 11, 2002
Summary:
Karon Ann Pierce had come to the bar with her boyfriend after going
out to dinner. While at the bar, witnesses testified that Karen was
drinking and taking drugs and had became involved in fights with
other women at the bar. She also may have been taken into a bathroom
and raped by several men. The man who had brought Karen to the bar
had left.
Thomas Evans, a cousin of Jesse Williams, later
left the bar with Karon to go to an area near a river to continue to
party. They were joined by Norwood and Williams and continued to
drink and take drugs. Norwood and Williams, in fact, did have sex
with Karon, the court said, before the murder occurred.
Pierce's body was discovered about ten days later
by a hunter in Jackson County. Pierce's throat had been slashed and
she had been stabbed in the heart. Her vagina and anus had been
excised with a small, sharp knife, and a pathologist testified that
Karen was alive while she was mutilated.
Norwood and Evans were originally charged with
capital murder, but testified in return for receiving less than
three years in prison on lesser charges. Williams has claimed others
were responsible for the murder.
Citations:
Williams v. State, 544 So. 2d 782 (Miss. 1987) (Direct
Appeal).
Final Meal:
Williams ate nothing on his final day, forgoing even a last meal of
his choice.
Final Words:
None.
ClarkProsecutor.org
Mississippi Department of
Corrections
MDOC# 0000061530
Name: JESSIE DERRELL WILLIAMS
Race WHITE
Sex MALE
Date of Birth 05/03/1951
Height 5FT 11IN
Weight 212
Complexion LIGHT/FAIR
Build HEAVY
Eye Color BROWN
Hair Color
Entry Date 01/17/1984
Location MSP
Total Length DEATH
County of Conviction 1 JACKSON
Sentence Date 1 01/20/1990
Jessie Derrell Williams
WLBT Channel 3
Jessie Derrell Williams spent his final hours
here at Parchment State Penitentiary visiting with family. He did
not eat his breakfast or lunch and there was no request for a
special dinner as the hours counted down to his execution. as the
sun set on Parchment prison a penitentiary wide lock down remained
in effect up until the execution.
Guards stationed outside
Williams's cell say he appeared to be in a good mood and chatty. A
three hour long meeting with his immediate family ended in a
waterfall of emotion.
"Williams was described as being very subdued he
was concerned about his family. Officials report that the mother was
taking the situation very hard, his brother john Williams was
emotionally upset." " His daughter has told us that while he was in
prison he has really tried to turn his life over to God."
Just after five a small group of protesters
gathered outside the prison to pray. "And to pray for the man who is
being execute and to pray for the family who was injured" At 6:42 PM
Williams was pronounced dead.
"This is one of the first death penalty cases
that I tried as a young district attorney. Almost twenty years ago.
actually this crime occurred ...next month it will be twenty years.
Mr. Williams certainly passed away in a very humane fashion it was
certainly not the way that Karon Ann Pierce was murdered and
tortured." "He died peacefully, very peacefully. My sister bled to
death. I don't have hatred in my heart toward him, I don't have
nothing towards him. Its just I have a pain where my sister was."
Williams becomes the second death row inmate to
be executed here at Parchment since Mississippi's capital punishment
laws were amended in 1998. He says he will give all of the money in
his inmate account to his mother, his body and organs will be
donated to university medical center.
Williams, 51, Dies Quietly for Torture Killing
of Teen
By Clay Harden - Jackson Clarion-Ledger.com
December 12, 2002
PARCHMAN - Jessie Derrell Williams, 51, condemned
to die almost 20 years ago for the torture slaying of an 18-year-old
woman, died quietly here by lethal injection Wednesday. His victim,
Escatawpa native Karon Ann Pierce, was sexually mutilated and her
throat cut. She bled to death in 15 pain-ravaged minutes on Jan. 12,
1983.
"I wish to God Karon had that opportunity" to die
as peacefully as Williams, said Waldine Riley, Pierce's mother, as
she watched Williams dying on the gurney in Unit 17 at the State
Penitentiary. When officials pronounced Williams dead at 6:42 p.m.,
Riley shoved her arm into the air in triumph. "Whoopee!" Riley said.
"Karon, you got it, Baby. We are even."
Williams, dressed in a red jump suit and brown
sandals, said, "No, sir," when Parchman Superintendent E.l. Sparkman
asked for any final words. After Leonard Vincent, general counsel
for the Mississippi Department of Corrections, said, "No stay," the
chemicals began to flow into Williams' heavily tattooed arms at 6:29
p.m.
Williams, his gray hair swept back on his head,
appeared to puff his lips between his moustache and beard as the
chemicals began to flow. He tilted his head to the right and shut
his eyes before his breathing became labored and he drifted into
death. Sunflower County Coroner Doug Card pronounced Williams dead
after putting a stethoscope to his chest. Williams' body will go to
University of Mississippi Medical Center.
The Jackson County man became the second person
in Mississippi to be executed this year after the state went 13
years without putting someone to death. Tracy Alan Hansen died in
July for the 1987 slaying of state trooper David Bruce Ladner.
Williams' execution, set for 6 p.m., was delayed almost 30 minutes
because the execution team could not find a vein in Williams' arms
due to dehydration. Williams declined to eat all day and refused to
take a shower. MDOC spokesman Ken Jones said Williams also declined
to take a sedative, telling officials, "I say 'no' to drugs." He
instead took two ibuprofen pills. Williams' family opted not to
watch him die. He had a low key and relaxed visit with family
members between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. according to MDOC officials.
He was "very subdued" and concerned about his
family, Jones said. His mother, Josephine Hunter, was taking the
situation "very hard," and his brother, John Williams, was "emotionally
upset," Jones said. Williams signed a waiver to turn over his inmate
funds to his mother. It is unclear how much money he has.
At 3:50 p.m., Williams returned to his cell to
start preparations for the execution. He met with his spiritual
adviser, Ruby Walters between 4:30 p.m. and 5 p.m. Williams feels he
is "finally at release" said Walters, who witnessed the execution.
Chris Epps, interim MDOC commissioner, said the procedures for
Williams' execution were nearly identical to those for Hansen,
executed July 17. The only change, he said, was a five-minute limit
on Williams' last words. Hansen made a rambling final statement that
lasted almost an hour.
Williams was one of 16 people initially arrested
in Pierce's death, but only Williams, his cousin, Thomas Terrell
Evans, and roommate Michael Anthony Norwood were prosecuted. Both
Evans and Norwood testified against Williams. They spent less than
three years in prison on charges of accessory after the fact of
murder. Norwood is now deceased.
Pierce was killed after making a fatal decision
not to leave the Scoreboard Lounge with her date after he was
threatened by bar patrons. Instead, witnesses at Williams' trials
said, Pierce smoked marijuana and ingested hallucinogens and
tranquilizers along with whiskey. Pierce, they say, got into a fight
with a woman at the bar, then was taken to a restroom and raped by
several men. Law enforcement authorities say Pierce left the bar to
go to a party on the Escatawpa River in Jackson County, where she
was killed.
"This is the end of a long journey," said
Attorney General Mike Moore, who prosecuted the case as a young
district attorney in Jackson County. "This was one of the most
brutal crimes I have prosecuted. I prosecuted the case, and I know
he is guilty and he knew it." Other witnesses to the execution were
Jackson County Deputy Sheriff Bryan White; Joey Alford, Pierce's
brother-in law; and Tony Fairley, Pierce's half brother . Fairley of
Lucedale, the only family member to address the news media after the
execution, said, "I am missing a piece of my life where my sister
was. We just want to put it behind us and move on."
ProDeathPenalty.com
Jesse D. Williams has twice been sentenced to
death for murdering 18-year-old Karen Ann Pierce of Escatawpa in
January 1983. His sentence was overturned once, but has stood since
the second sentencing in 1990.
Almost twenty years since Karen's murder,
Williams is now 51. The seeds of the murder had started at a rowdy
bar in Gautier where Karen had been celebrating her recent 18th
birthday. Karen had come to the bar with her boyfriend after going
out to dinner.
While at the bar, witnesses testified that Karen was
drinking and taking drugs and had became involved in fights with
other women at the bar. She also may have been taken into a bathroom
and raped by several men. The man who had brought Karen to the bar
had left.
Thomas Evans, a cousin of Jesse Williams, later
left the bar with Karen to go to an area near a river to continue to
party. They were joined by Norwood and Williams and continued to
drink and take drugs. Norwood and Williams, in fact, did have sex
with Karen, the court said, before the murder occurred.
Originally,
five men were charged with capital murder in the slaying of Karen
Ann Pierce, and numerous others arrested. At least one investigator
believes that more than one person should have been sentenced to
death for the murder.
However, murder charges against two of the men
were dropped and two others pleaded to lesser charges after agreeing
to testify against Williams.
Williams grabbed Karen and tackled her, according
to testimony at the trial given by Thomas Evans. Evans testified he
saw Williams standing over the top of the victim, holding a knife.
Williams lifted her head to show Evans where he had cut her throat,
Evans testified.
Evans also testified that Williams told him that
when he stabbed Pierce in he chest, she "jumped straight up."
Another man involved, Michael Norwood, Williams' roommate, later
testified that several days after the murder Williams told him that
he had cut Pierces throat.
The murder occurred on Jan 11, 1983. Pierce's
body was discovered about ten days later by a hunter in Jackson
County. Pierce's throat had been slashed and she had been stabbed in
the heart. Her vagina and anus had been excised with a small, sharp
knife, and a pathologist testified that Karen was alive while she
was mutilated.
Norwood and Evans were originally charged with
capital murder, but testified in return for receiving less than
three years in prison on lesser charges. Williams has claimed others
were responsible for the murder of Pierce and that Norwood and Evans
lied.
Mississippi law calls for the death penalty in
cases of kidnap and murder. Prosecutors convinced a jury that by
grabbing and tackling Pierce as she tried to run away, Williams had
actually kidnapped her.
Another aggravating factor leading to
Williams death sentence was the fact that he had been previously
convicted of armed robbery in 1973. Prosecutors said Williams had
used a knife in that robbery. Besides the testimony of Norwood and
Evans, police also found a serrated knife on Williams that
prosecutors said was the murder weapon.
Williams Executed for Mutilation Murder
Jackson Clarion-Ledger.com
AP - December 12, 2002
PARCHMAN Jessie Derrell Williams was put to
death by lethal injection Wednesday for the 1983 rape and mutilation
murder of an 18-year-old Jackson County woman. Williams met with his
spiritual adviser and changed into a red jumpsuit before being led
into the death chamber at the Mississippi penitentiary. He was
pronounced dead at 6:42 p.m.
Williams, 51, was convicted and sentenced to
death for slashing the throat of Karon Ann Pierce, then mutilating
her body.
Williams' execution was the second in Mississippi
this year. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Williams' last-minute
appeal two hours before his execution.
Prison spokesman Ken Jones said Williams declined
to take a sedative, telling officials, "I say 'no' to drugs." A
dozen people protested outside the prison gates, while about 60
people protested outside the governor's mansion in Jackson. Williams
visited with six family members, including his mother and sister, in
the hours before his execution. He had been allowed to make collect
calls since Tuesday but chose not to make any. He did not request a
final meal and refused to eat breakfast or lunch.
Clemency Denied for Condemned Killer
By Riva Brown - Jackson Clarion-Ledger.com
December 11, 2002
Before being executed by lethal injection today
for the grisly death of Karon Ann Pierce, Jessie Derrell Williams
will say goodbye to his family through a Plexiglas window via
telephone. On Jan. 12, 1983, Williams, 51, slashed the Escatawpa
native's throat, sexually mutilated her and left her in the woods to
die 15 minutes later. She was 18.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
Orleans denied Williams' request for a stay of execution Monday.
Williams' attorney, Tom Sumrall of Gulfport, then filed a petition
with the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday. Also, Gov. Ronnie Musgrove
denied Williams' clemency petition. "This was a brutal, heinous
crime," Musgrove said during a news conference Tuesday. "The case
has been tried, it has been reviewed numerous times. The punishment
here certainly fits the crime."
Williams must request to visit his family before
he is put to death, but family members cannot touch him for security
reasons, said Claire Papizan, a communications specialist with the
Mississippi Department of Corrections. Williams' daughter, Tina
Ragon of Picayune, said last week she wishes MDOC would be more
understanding and compassionate. She plans to witness her father's
execution and talk with him beforehand. "I talked to his chaplain,
and I just lost it and started crying on the phone because I'd been
thinking all this time well, at least it will be comforting to know
that maybe I can give him a hug," Ragon said. "It's not like we're
going to have anything on us. It's not like we're going to hurt him
or he's going to hurt us. Why couldn't they just let us give him,
just for a second, a hug to say, 'I love you and bye'?"
Ken Jones, MDOC's public information officer,
said the no-touch visitation policy is firm on death row. "It's just
because of the nature of the crime itself and the seriousness of the
crime," Jones said. State law allows two family members from each
side to view the execution. However, Musgrove has granted a request
for two more Pierce family members to view the execution. Pierce's
and Williams' families will view it from different rooms. "We keep
them separate at all times," Papizan said. "They will not even be at
the same place before the execution takes place."
Tina Frazier, director of MDOC's Division of
Victim Services, said she has met with Pierce's family to explain
what to expect and how to deal with their feelings before and after
Williams' execution. Although Williams' execution may bring some
closure, the family still must deal with the pain associated with
dates such as Pierce's birthday, Christmas and the day she died,
Frazier said. "Those dates still come around, and I just want them
to be aware of their own emotions," Frazier said.
Frazier worked with the Mississippi Crime Victims
Compensation Program Division of Victim Assistance and the Gulf
Coast Women's Center for Nonviolence in Biloxi to arrange
transportation to Parchman for Pierce's family. The center provided
a van, she said. "They did not have a good vehicle to get them there,
we all collaborated for the good of the victim's family," Frazier
said. "That's what it's all about putting victims first. Karon
can't speak for herself, she has no voice anymore, but at a minimum
what we can do is help her family."
On Monday, Williams was transported to a 6-by-9-foot
holding cell adjacent to the death chamber. An officer guards him at
all times. In his cell, he is allowed only a red jumpsuit, standard
attire for death row inmates; one set of underwear; and legal and
writing material, Papizan said. As a security measure, the
penitentiary was placed on emergency/lockdown status Tuesday. "It
cuts down on unnecessary movement," Papizan said. "(The other
inmates) don't even get their hour of exercise. They don't get to
leave their cells at all. Nobody moves."
At 6 p.m. today, six MDOC officers will escort
Williams, whose hands and feet will be shackled, to the death
chamber and strap him to a gurney. "If the inmate tries to resist,
you have to have six people to take him down," Papizan said. The
penitentiary superintendent, a medical pathologist and a coroner
also will be present. A microphone will be lowered over Williams'
head in case he has final words. A timekeeper and the executioner
will be in a separate room. The IV runs from that room to the death
chamber. Williams has asked that his body be donated to the
University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson.
Pierce's twin sister, Sharon Ann Alford of
Carriere, said last week that Williams has done his suffering in
prison and "it's time for him to go to sleep." But other siblings
believe Williams is getting the easy way out. "I know the Bible says
'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,' but I don't want him to
die," said Tony Fairley, 25, of Lucedale, said last week. "I don't
feel like it's right. Let him sit there. Let him suffer for what
he's done." In contrast, Alford, who will witness the execution,
said: "I don't believe in vengeance and all that, and I don't even
believe in the death penalty because I know that he has served his
time. Going to bed at night and dreaming about this, he had to."
Family Hopes it Can Rest Again Now that Williams'
Life is Over
By Brad Crocker - Pascagoula Mississippi Press
December 12, 2002
PARCHMAN -- The family of Karon Ann Pierce said
the execution Wednesday of Jessie Derrell Williams didn't bring
their loved one back, but they felt some grief leave after watching
her accused killer die in front of them. It's been a long way. Now
that it's through, maybe we can rest in peace, and Karon, too,"
Pierce's mother, Waldine Riley, said in a statement read to the
media by Mississippi Department of Corrections spokeswoman Tara
Frazier.
Pierce's brother Tony Fairley said, "He died
peacefully. My sister bled to death. I have a pain where my sister
was and all I can say is I'm glad it's over." Members of the media
who witnessed the execution gave detailed accounts of what they saw.
Many said Williams died a humane death. "I found it uneventful. I
think you could show this to schoolchildren and they wouldn't be
affected by it. They would probably be bored," said Keith Hill with
Mississippi News Network.
Clay Harden with The Clarion-Ledger sat in the
same room as Pierce's family. He said Williams died peacefully,
adding that he heard Riley exclaim following the 6:42 p.m.
announcement that Williams was dead, "I wished to God that Karon had
had that opportunity." Hill said Williams moved very little and
looked in one direction or at the ceiling waiting to die, unlike
Tracy Hansen "who was moving all the time" when he was executed in
July. Jason Straziuso with The Associated Press said Riley was
focused on Williams, and Sgt. Bryan White with the Jackson County
Sheriff's Department consoled Pierce's brother, Tony Fairley.
Several reporters said he also made the comment
that "my sister bled to death" during the execution. Christine
Nelson with WABG-TV in Greenville said the building in which the
execution was held "had a smell. It was a weird smell to me." She
said she was disappointed that Williams did not make any statements
before he died. "I would have hoped he would have said something,"
she said. She also reiterated many other witnesses' comments that
Williams' death was "very ironic compared to how the victim died."
Randy Bell with Clear Channel Radio said he felt
the Christmas decorations on the houses near the execution building
"seemed a little odd considering the circumstances of the evening."
He agreed that Williams' execution was humane, despite a delay due
to not being able to find a vein to insert the IV and the poison. "It
appeared he just went to sleep," Bell said.
Mississippi Inmate's Lawyers Make Final Appeal
Before Execution
Eyewitness News Channel 24
December 12, 2002
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) - Jessie Derrell Williams,
the condemned killer scheduled to die by lethal injection at 6 p.m.
Wednesday, was "chatty" and in a good mood in the hours before his
execution, prison officials said. Attorneys for Williams made a last-minute
appeal Tuesday to the U.S. Supreme Court, the only body likely to
stop the execution after Gov. Ronnie Musgrove refused to grant
clemency. Williams, 51, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1983
for slashing the throat of Karon Ann Pierce, 18, then mutilating the
body.
On Wednesday, Williams refused to eat breakfast
and lunch. He hadn't requested a final meal as of midday, officials
said. Williams met with his mother, sister, daughter, brother and
the penitentiary chaplain Wednesday afternoon. Although he was
allowed, he hadn't made any collect phone calls Tuesday or Wednesday,
officials said. Corrections Commissioner Chris Epps said prison
officials had practiced the lethal injection procedure several times
in the last week. As a precaution, penitentiary officials kept
inmates in their cells.
Wednesday's execution was to be the state's
second in 13 years. Tracy Alan Hansen was executed in July by lethal
injection. Before that the state had used a gas chamber for
executions. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday denied a
stay of execution request by Williams.
Attorney Tom Sumrall, who represents Williams,
said Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court appeal was basically the same as
the one denied by the appeals court in New Orleans. "This is our
last shot and so we're going to submit it to them and hope we
prevail this time," Sumrall said.
Assistant Attorney General Marvin "Sonny" White
said he expected the execution to take place as scheduled. Williams'
body will be donated to the University Medical Center in Jackson.
The Green Party of Mississippi protested Williams' execution,
calling on Musgrove to commute his sentence and not participate in
what it called "state-sponsored killing."
Williams Executed; Victim's Mother Cheers his
Death
By Margaret Baker - South Mississippi Sun-Herald
December 12, 2002
PARCHMAN - Jesse Derrell Williams refused to say
a word before he was executed Wednesday night for the 1983 rape,
beating and mutilation murder of 18-year-old Karon Ann Pierce. But
his death after nearly 20 years in prison led to cheers from the
victim's mother, Waldine Riley, who witnessed the execution along
with her son, Tony Fairley, and her son-in-law, Joseph Alford.
Media witnesses said Riley shouted "Whoopee, Karon, you got it baby,"
shortly after Sunflower County Coroner Douglas Card declared
Williams dead at 6:42 p.m. Wednesday. The execution, Mississippi's
second this year, was carried out about two hours after the U.S.
Supreme Court rejected Williams' last-minute appeal.
Sharon Pierce Alford, the victim's identical twin
sister, had planned to attend the execution, but changed her mind
when she was overcome by grief. She remained on the prison grounds
until the execution was completed. The execution was delayed for
about 30 minutes because Williams was dehydrated and the medical
staff could not find a vein. Once the poisons had been injected, his
eyes appeared glazed and his breathing became labored. Twelve
minutes later, he was dead.
Witnesses said the 51-year-old Williams appeared
to be calm and at peace when he was asked if he had any final
statements. "No sir," he said, "I do not." Williams ate nothing on
his final day, forgoing even a last meal of his choice, and he
declined to make phone calls. He also decided against taking a
sedative, telling officials, "I say 'no' to drugs." He instead took
two ibuprofen.
Law enforcement officials said Williams' death
was much less painful than Pierce's death, which has been described
as one of the most savage ever committed in the state. Pierce was 18
when she went out on a date the night of Jan. 11, 1983. Sometime
during the night, she was raped, beaten and tortured until she bled
to death on the banks of the Escatawpa River in East Jackson County.
Police at first arrested 16 people in connection
with Pierce's death, but later named Williams, his roommate, Michael
Anthony Norwood, and his cousin Thomas Terrell Evans as the killers.
Evans and Norwood cut a deal with the state and testified against
Williams in exchange for a lesser charge. Both men served less than
three years. Williams continued to say he was innocent until the end.
On Wednesday, he appeared to be in a good mood,
spending the morning talking to a prison guard about trucks before
visiting with relatives. His mood turned somewhat somber after his
mother, Josephine Hunter, and his brother, Tony Williams, left the
prison visibly upset. "If I'm executed (murdered)," Williams wrote
in a letter to The Sun Herald, "I feel like all efforts to find out
who actually killed Karon will die right along with me. As long as
I'm alive, the search will continue."
But that search has ended, Attorney General Mike
Moore said Wednesday: "Justice has been served." After the execution,
Fairley said, "I have a pain where my sister was, and all I can say
is I'm glad it's over." Williams' body will be donated to the
University Medical Center in Jackson.
Wednesday's execution was the state's second in
13 years. Tracy Alan Hansen was executed in July by lethal injection.
Before that the state had used the gas chamber.
Jessie Derrell Williams v.
State of Mississippi (1996)
Supreme Court of Mississippi
EN BANC.
SMITH, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
Jessie Derrell Williams was indicted by a Jackson
County Grand Jury for the capital murder of Karen Ann Pierce,
committed while he was engaged in the commission of the crime of
kidnaping. Venue was transferred to Lauderdale County for trial. In
December 1983, Williams was found guilty of the capital murder of
Pierce and sentenced to death by virtue of the jury verdict. On
January 25, 1984, Williams filed a motion for a new trial which
raised inter alia this very issue we now consider. The court held an
evidentiary hearing on February 2, 1984, and overruled Williams'
post trial motions. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the guilt-finding
phase of Williams' bifurcated trial, but on petition for rehearing,
reversed the sentence-determining phase and remanded the case for a
new sentencing hearing. See Williams v. State, 544 So. 2d 782 (Miss.
1987).
Williams appealed under the Post-Conviction
Collateral Relief Act, seeking to vacate his conviction of capital
murder on the ground that the State violated discovery rules by
withholding a leniency agreement consummated between co-indictee
Thomas Terrell Evans and the prosecution, whereby Evans would plead
guilty to accessory after the fact and receive five years
imprisonment in exchange for turning State's evidence and testifying
against Williams. Williams argues that this alleged plea bargain
undermines the credibility of Evans to the extent that a new trial
is required. Thus aggrieved, Williams presents as his sole issue for
review.
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING HIS
MOTION FOR PCR RELIEF?
A thorough review of this issue leads this Court
to conclude that the issue of the plea bargain raised in Williams'
motion for a new trial was capable of determination at that point.
In fact, the issue was litigated and adjudicated to be without merit,
thus Williams is procedurally barred. Foster v. State, 639 So. 2d
1263 (Miss. 1994). Williams is not entitled to another evidentiary
hearing on this issue. Alternatively, procedural bar notwithstanding,
considering Williams' issue on its merit, we find no merit exists.
There was no evidence of any "deal." This Court denies Williams'
motion for post-conviction relief.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS -- PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This Court, in Williams v. State, 544 So. 2d 782
(Miss. 1987), stated "The facts of this case are so bizarre and the
methods used to bring about the death of Miss Pierce are so
relentlessly savage that no purpose will be served by repeating them
here, except where they are essential to the ends of justice in
dealing with the issues raised by the appeal." Id. at 784.
Again we note that because of the limited nature
of the sole issue presented by this appeal, a brief synopsis of the
procedural history of the case and limited facts will suffice.
Williams was convicted of capital murder and
sentenced to death on December 15, 1983. Thomas Terrell Evans is
Williams' first cousin and co-indictee, and testified against
Williams in the original trial in December 1983. During the trial,
Evans denied the existence of any plea bargain agreement he had with
the State. The prosecution also denied the same. Evans also stated,
"I've told the truth all the time, yes sir." At the trial in 1983,
Evans was represented by attorneys Fielding Wright and Richard
Hamilton.
Following the trial, Williams soon filed a motion
for a new trial on January 25, 1984, in the Lauderdale County
Circuit Court. In this motion, Williams raised the thorny issue of
whether the prosecution withheld the existence of an alleged plea
bargain agreement it had struck with the co-defendant Evans. The
Lauderdale County Circuit Court held an evidentiary hearing on
February 2, 1984, and Williams called the Honorable Michael C. Moore,
then the District Attorney for the 19th Circuit Court District, the
Honorable Kathy H. King, then assistant district attorney, the
Honorable Louis Guirola, Jr., then an assistant district attorney,
and his co-indictee, Thomas Terrell Evans, to testify as to whether
there had been a deal for Evans' testimony against petitioner. The
testimony from all four parties was a resounding "no" to the
existence of any deal. Thus, the motion for a new trial was
overruled on February 2, 1984, and petitioner perfected an appeal to
this Court on February 10, 1984. It is important to note the
testimony which occurred during the evidentiary hearing on the
motion for a new trial:
(A) District Attorney Michael C. Moore:
District Attorney Mike Moore testified that
Fielding Wright, Evans' attorney, first approached the two assistant
district attorneys and told them that they had the wrong man in
regard to the crime against Karen Ann Pierce. He stated that Mr.
Wright informed them that his client's culpability would be equal to
one guilty of accessory after the fact only. Moore testified that he
knew that Evans was already on probation, and that his probation
would most certainly be revoked; however, he also stated that "I can
say with certainty that nothing was ever said to Mr. Evans in that
regard, or at least with my consent, that he would serve a certain
period of time in the penitentiary, because we can't-- there is no
way we can tell." Moore further stated, "I've never discussed what
we would recommend in return for his testimony with Mr. Evans. As a
matter of fact, the only thing I've ever told Mr. Evans is that I
don't have any recommendation." Prior to trial, there were no
tentative agreements as to recommendations from the State if Evans
were to plead guilty to a crime.
(B) Assistant District Attorney Kathy King:
Assistant District Attorney Kathy King's
testimony echoed that of Moore's. She also stated that Fielding
Wright approached them and stated that Evans could tell them who was
the real killer of Pierce. Wright told her that based on what Evans
had already told him, Evans was not guilty of anything more than
accessory after the fact. King stated that she and Wright then
discussed what kind of offer might be made for Evans since he was
already on probation. However, she never promised Wright anything
since the prosecution team had not yet spoken to Evans himself. She
said that she made it clear to both Evans and Wright that there
would be no deal if Evans' version of the story did not match up
with all of the other evidence and testimony of the other co-indictees.
Because there were many discrepancies between Evans' testimony and
that of Williams and the other co-indictee, Norwood, King stated
that a deal was "up in the air," and in her mind, "there was no deal,"
in light of the indictments handed down by the grand jury. The only
discussion she had with Fielding Wright post-indictment was when
Wright inquired as to what happened, and she responded, "'Fielding,
obviously the grand jury didn't believe all the facts as your man
told them after they heard all the evidence, and they saw fit to
indict him.' And that's all I ever said to Fielding after that. "
She further stated that "[t]he only other time I kn[e]w anything
about any deals even being discussed was some time before the trial
was set. . . . Terrell Evans was in our office and . . . when Mike [Moore]
told him there were no deals, there were not going to be any deals."
"I don't remember Mike's exact words, but Mike said as far as he was
concerned, he would go with the death penalty for him [Evans] too."
(C) Assistant District Attorney Louis Guirola, Jr.:
Mr. Louis Guirola, Jr. also corroborated his
fellow prosecutors' testimonies, stating that "[t]he only thing [he]
ever heard prior to the trial date and extending back was that Mr.
Moore told Mr. Evans specifically that he did not have a deal, he
did not have any recommendation and that as far as he was concerned,
. . . he [wa]s facing the death penalty too." He testified that
Moore asked Evans' at least twice whether he understood that he had
no deals, and both times, Evans responded, "Yes, I understand." He
further noted that this "happened on more than one occasion, because
it would go on at each individual interview so that he would
understand at each interview that he did not have a plea negotiation."
Mr. Guirola gave the most detailed account of the
exchanges between the district attorney's office and Fielding Wright,
as follows:
[L]et me . . . start[ ] at the beginning. When
this investigation first took place, there were bits and pieces of
information that would come into the Sheriff's Office and then they
would make arrests based on these bits and pieces of information.
During their investigation, they arrested two individuals, one I
believe was John Paul Adams and the other one, . . . Mitchell Byrd.
. . . Sometime later during the investigation, Thomas Terrell Evans
was arrested but he was not charged with capital murder at that time
and we weren't even sure of what his involvement was . . . . I think
it might have been the next day or next afternoon, Mr. Fielding
Wright came into our office and announced that he was representing
Thomas Terrell Evans. And, at that time, he made the statement-- and
I remember this vividly, because it shocked me-- he said, 'You've
got the wrong people charged with capital murder, and I know who did
it.' Well, of course, at that point Miss King was present too and we
were very interested . . . . And, Mr. Wright said, 'Well, of course,
I can't tell you what my source of information [is]. I can only tell
you that I know who did it and you've got the wrong people in jail
for capital murder.' Well, it didn't take a genius to understand
that if he's representing Thomas Terrell Evans and he comes in and
makes that kind of a statement that, obviously, Mr. Wright's source
of information was Thomas Terrell Evans. At that point, Mr. Wright
said 'Well, if I am able to bring some information forward that will
get you the right man, what would this office be willing to do?' At
which point myself and Miss King both told him, 'We can't make any
recommendation. We can't say anything at this point because we don't
even know who it is or what he will say.' . . . [Wright] gave us an
outline of what the person knew and who he knew to be the actual
killer of the victim . . . and that [his source] could be guilty of
nothing more than accessory after the fact to capital murder, which
if you took the facts as Mr. Wright perceived them and he was told
them, arguably that would have been the charge. So, at that point, I
believe Miss King and I both told Mr. Wright, 'Well, if this is true,
if these facts are right down the line as you have told us, there is
no way that you could convict that man of anything more than
accessory after the fact to capital murder, which carries a maximum
penalty of five years in the penitentiary.' Now, at that point-- let
me make it clear-- that was not a recommendation that was made, that
was an observation that that would be the maximum penalty for that
particular crime.
At that point, Evans was brought in for an
interview. After the interview, there was some discussion about what
Evans would get if his story was true. Guirola told Wright again,
'If what your man is saying is true, then the
maximum penalty would be five years in the penitentiary, and since
he is in fact on probation now, that probation would be revoked and
he would get five years consecutive with five addition years for
accessory after the fact.' I still did not perceive that as a
recommendation, because all of the facts were not in, all of the
testimony was not in. But, I thought that in my opinion that's what
would happen if all these facts were true. . . . I didn't think we
were in the position to . . . make any firm recommendation.
After the case went before the grand jury, they
indicted Evans for capital murder, too.
Now since the time of the indictment, and I would
say sometime before, at no time has Terrell Evans been told 'you've
got a deal with the District Attorney' or 'we're going to reduce
something,' because there was nothing to reduce at that point. . . .
As a matter of fact, that has been to the contrary. Mr. Moore has
always told Mr. Evans, 'Be sure that you understand you do not have
any kind of recommendation, you do not have any kind of deal. You
are charged with capital murder and as far as I'm concerned you are
facing the death penalty too.' At which point Mr. Evans would always
indicate that he understood.
The above detailed account by Guirola indicates
that there was no plea bargain agreement between the State and Evans.
(D) Co-indictee Thomas Terrell Evans:
Evans was the final witness to testify. His
attorney, Fielding Wright, was in the courtroom on that date, but
has since passed away. Evans testified that he did not feel like he
ever had any kind of tentative agreement with the district attorney.
He also stated that there was no discussion between him and the
district attorney's office regarding a possible sentencing
recommendation. He testified that there was some discussion about
the revocation of his probation.
* * * *
CONCLUSION
Williams claims he is entitled to an evidentiary
hearing because the credibility of Evans has been so undermined that
a new trial is required. Bear in mind the following: There are
deficiencies in the affidavits of Hamilton and Evans. Hamilton
executed an affidavit six years after the fact. Fielding Wright
never executed an accompanying affidavit to buttress co-counsel
Hamilton's affidavit. Wright and Hamilton could have been called to
give evidence at the evidentiary hearing, but they did not testify.
That there could be a plea bargain for a five year sentence, when
the maximum sentence that a person guilty of accessory after the
fact could serve is five years, is indeed suspect. Evans recanted
his 1985 recanting affidavit during Williams' 1990 sentencing
hearing, stating that he had no deal and that he had told the truth
at all times.
Besides, in the 1985 affidavit, Evans did not say
he lied or changed his testimony during the 1983 trial because of
any "deal." He only said his testimony was "colored." Plea bargains
generally should be reduced to writing yet, there is absolutely no
written plea bargain agreement. Because of these deficiencies, this
Court denies Williams' motion for post-conviction relief. Williams
has failed to establish that there existed material perjury, and
therefore, he cannot shake this Court's confidence in the outcome of
his case.
DENIAL OF POST CONVICTION RELIEF AFFIRMED.
283 F.3d 272
United States Court of Appeals For the Fifth
Circuit
Jessie Derrell WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant, v.
S.W. PUCKETT, Commissioner,
Mississippi Department of Corrections and Attorney
General, State of Mississippi, Respondents-Appellees.
February 13, 2002
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi.
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and
EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:
On January 11,
1983, Jessie Derrell Williams murdered Karen Ann
Pierce. The killing was gruesome. Pierce likely was
alive when Williams cut out her genitals. He then
stabbed her in the chest and slit her throat.
Williams does not dispute that he murdered Pierce
nor does he dispute the manner in which he committed
the murder.
After a trial and
conviction for capital murder, a jury sentenced
Williams to death. After exhausting his state
remedies, Williams sought habeas relief in federal
district court. The district court denied his
petition. Williams now seeks a certificate of
appealability ("COA").
Williams argues
that his constitutional rights were violated because
(1) there was insufficient evidence presented to
support a kidnaping conviction; (2) the prosecutor
failed to turn over potentially exculpatory
information; and (3) the jury that re-sentenced
Williams (after his first sentence but not his
conviction had been reversed) was not instructed
on the elements of kidnaping. To obtain a COA, the
defendant must make a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). Williams has not made such a showing
with respect to any of his claims. We therefore deny
his application for a COA.
I
* On the night of
January 11, 1983, Pierce went with a date to the
Scoreboard Lounge in Gautier, Mississippi.
Throughout the night, Pierce consumed beer and drugs.
Her date left the Scoreboard early in the evening
after she refused to go home with him.
Sometime after her
date left and before Williams arrived, Pierce was
gang-raped. After the rape, Pierce and the rapists
remained at the bar. Toward the end of the evening,
Williams, Michael Norwood, and Terrell Evans arrived.
Evans and Pierce
began talking, and Evans convinced her to go for a
ride with Williams, Norwood, and himself. On the way
out of town, they stopped at a convenience store,
bought some beer, and continued on to a secluded
spot off Interstate 10. They smoked marijuana and
drank beer.
Norwood and
Williams proceeded to have sex with Pierce a number
of times in the bed of the truck. During one of the
times with Williams, Pierce asked him to stop. He
did not. Pierce then asked to go back to the
Scoreboard to pick up some of her things. The men
refused to take her back to the bar.
At some point
during the night, Pierce and Williams exited the
truck. Pierce started to run away from Williams.
Williams then tackled her and dragged her into the
woods. After waiting awhile, Evans went searching
for Williams and Pierce.
Evans saw Williams
with a knife standing over Pierce's mangled and cut
body. As Evans began to walk away, Williams said "I
am not leaving until I'm sure she is dead." Fifteen
minutes later, Williams returned to the truck. The
three men left the scene.
Ten days later,
Pierce's body was found. Her blood contained .07
percent alcohol and traces of drugs. The cause of
death was a knife wound. The location of the wound
was the area between Pierce's vagina and her rectum,
a wound inflicted while Pierce apparently was still
alive.
II
In December 1983,
a Mississippi jury found Williams guilty of
committing murder during the course of a kidnaping,
a capital murder offense in Mississippi. MISS. CODE
ANN. § 97-3-19(2)(e). The jury sentenced Williams to
death. Williams appealed his conviction and sentence.
In this first of several appeals, Williams asserted
numerous claims before the Mississippi Supreme Court.
On rehearing, the court affirmed his conviction but
found reversible error at sentencing when the trial
court allowed the prosecutor to comment on the
possibility of parole and the lengthy appellate
review process. The court remanded the case for a
new sentencing hearing. Williams v. State,
544 So.2d 782, 794-802 (Miss.1987).
At this hearing, a
second jury specifically found three aggravating
circumstances that weighed in favor of the death
penalty: (1) that Williams was previously convicted
of a felony involving the threat of violence to a
person; (2) that the capital offense was committed
while Williams was engaged in the commission of a
kidnaping; and (3) that the capital murder of Pierce
was especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel.
The jury also
found that there were no mitigating circumstances to
outweigh the aggravating circumstances. Accordingly,
the second jury, like the first jury, sentenced
Williams to death. Williams directly appealed this
sentence. The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected all
of Williams' claims and affirmed the sentence of
death. Williams then sought relief from the United
States Supreme Court. The Court denied Williams's
petition for writ of certiorari. Williams v.
Mississippi, 520 U.S. 1145, 117 S.Ct. 1317, 137
L.Ed.2d 479 (1997).
While Williams was
pursuing these extensive direct appeals, he was also
attacking his conviction collaterally in the state
courts. In January 1990, Williams filed an
application with the Mississippi Supreme Court under
the Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act ("PCCRA").
The application sought to set aside his conviction
and sentence. Williams argued that the state had
violated certain state discovery rules when it
withheld information regarding a plea agreement
between the state and Evans, the key witness in this
case.
The Mississippi
Supreme Court denied the application and held that
Williams was procedurally barred from making this
claim collaterally. Williams v. State, 669
So.2d 44, 52 (Miss.1996). In November 1997, Williams
filed an application seeking leave to apply for
post-conviction relief a second time, claiming
ineffective assistance of counsel. The Mississippi
Supreme Court denied the application. Williams v.
State, 722 So.2d 447 (Miss.1998).
Williams next
turned to the federal courts. In January 1999,
Williams filed a petition for relief in the Southern
District of Mississippi, in which he raised four
claims related to the guilt phase of the trial, six
claims related to the sentencing phase of the trial,
and an overarching claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel. The district court denied relief, and
Williams sought a certificate of appealability. The
district court denied this request.
Finally, almost
eighteen years after the night Williams killed and
mutilated Pierce, this case comes before us.
III
Before turning to
the three claims upon which Williams bases his
request for a COA, we will first address the
relevant standard of review. Williams filed his
federal petition on January 8, 1999. The
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)
became effective on April 24, 1996. AEDPA therefore
governs this case. As we have previously noted,
under AEDPA a petitioner is entitled to a COA if he
makes a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
To make such a
showing the petitioner must demonstrate that "reasonable
jurists could debate (or for that matter, agree that)
the [habeas] petition should have been resolved in a
different manner or that the issues presented were
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."
Barrientes v. Johnson, 221 F.3d 741, 772 (5th
Cir.2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 482, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542
(2000)), cert dismissed, 531 U.S. 1134, 121
S.Ct. 902, 148 L.Ed.2d 948 (2001).
Our task in this
case is to decide whether the district court's
assessment of Williams's constitutional claims is
either debatable or wrong. See Slack, 529
U.S. at 485, 120 S.Ct. 1595. The district court's
assessment of the constitutional claims of state
prisoners in a habeas petition is restricted. Under
AEDPA, federal courts must first decide the contours
of clearly established federal law as determined by
the United States Supreme Court, and second, decide
whether the state court's decision was contrary to
or involved an unreasonable application of that
law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Just as Section
2254(d)(1) restricts the district court's assessment
of Williams's constitutional claims, it also limits
our review in this COA request. We engage in the
following "double barreled" reasonableness inquiry
with respect to each constitutional claim: Is the
district court's determination that the state court
did not unreasonably apply clearly established
federal law debatable among reasonable jurists?
See Barrientes, 221 F.3d at 772 ("[T]he
determination of whether a COA should issue must be
made by viewing [Williams]'s arguments through the
lens of the deferential scheme laid out in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d).").
With this standard
of review in mind we will assess, in turn,
Williams's claims that his constitutional rights
were violated because (1) there was insufficient
evidence to support a conviction for kidnaping; (2)
the prosecutor failed to turn over potentially
exculpatory evidence; and (3) the sentencing jury
was not instructed on the elements of kidnaping.
* Both the state
trial court and the Mississippi Supreme Court found
that there was sufficient evidence to support
Williams's conviction of kidnaping. The district
court concluded that this determination was not
contrary to and did not involve an unreasonable
application of clearly established federal law.
For the following reasons, this holding by the
district court is not debatable among reasonable
jurists.
Williams's
argument to the district court which he re-asserts
in his COA request was that the only basis for the
kidnaping conviction is Evans's testimony that
Williams dragged Pierce into the woods. Williams
contends that this testimony is unreliable because
of Evans's subsequent admission that he was
influenced by threats and promises of the district
attorney.1
The Supreme Court has clearly established the law
with respect to a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence. In Jackson v. Virginia, the
Court stated:
[T]he critical
inquiry on a review of the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a criminal conviction must be
not simply to determine whether the jury was
properly instructed, but to determine whether the
record evidence could reasonably support a finding
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.... [T]he
relevant question is whether, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements beyond a reasonable
doubt.
443 U.S. 307, 319,
99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (citations
omitted). The Mississippi Supreme Court correctly
identified this federal law as the applicable
standard when it evaluated Williams's sufficiency of
the evidence claim. Williams v. State, 544
So.2d at 789.
Under Mississippi
law, to prove kidnaping the state must show that the
defendant (1) forcibly seized and confined or (2)
inveigled or kidnaped another, with the intent to
cause such a person either (a) to be secretly
confined, or (b) to be deprived of liberty or in any
way held to service against her will. MISS. CODE
ANN. § 97-3-53; Hughes v. State, 401 So.2d
1100, 1105 (Miss.1981).
In this case, the
evidence supporting the kidnaping conviction is
substantial: First, there is Evans's testimony that
he saw Williams drag Pierce into the woods; second,
there is the undisputed fact that Pierce was high on
drugs and drunk on alcohol on the night in question,
which suggests that she might not have knowingly
gone along with the men, that is, she was inveigled;
third, there is the men's refusal of Pierce's
request to go back to the bar and retrieve her
things; and finally, there is the abused and mangled
condition of Pierce's body, suggesting a struggle.
It may well be
true, as Williams argues, that some evidence
suggests a finding against kidnaping, including
Pierce's voluntary sexual activities with Williams
and Norwood and the testimony that Pierce smoked,
laughed, and drank with the men prior to her murder.
The jury, however, weighed the evidence as indeed
was its prerogative and duty and found that
Williams kidnaped Pierce.
The Mississippi
Supreme Court held that, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational
trier of fact could have found all the elements of
kidnaping. The district court found that this
holding was not an unreasonable application of the
Jackson standard. We think that, given the
magnitude of the evidence pointing toward kidnaping,
this holding by the district court is not debatable
among reasonable jurists. We therefore deny
Williams's request for a COA on this claim.
B
The Mississippi
Supreme Court found that Williams's due process
rights were not violated when the prosecutor and
trial judge failed to grant him access to
potentially exculpatory information. The district
court held that this finding was not contrary to,
and did not involve an unreasonable application of,
clearly established federal law. We will therefore
determine whether this holding of the district court
is debatable among reasonable jurists.
It is well-settled
law that "suppression by the prosecutor of evidence
favorable to an accused ... violates due process
where the evidence is material, either to guilt or
punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad
faith of the prosecutor." Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215
(1963). Evidence is material for the purpose of a
Brady violation if "there is a reasonable
probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to
the defense, the result of the proceeding would have
been different." United States v. Bagley, 473
U.S. 667, 678, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481
(1985).
Williams contends
that Pierce's bruised and beaten body was the result
of the gang-rape she endured earlier in the evening.
Based on this contention, Williams argues that
because the prosecutor and the trial court denied
him access to the rapists' statements, he could not
develop a defense that showed that the gang-rape
as opposed to a struggle with Williams caused the
horrific condition of Pierce's body.
A majority of the
Mississippi Supreme Court failed to see how the jury
could have reached a different result, even if
Williams had offered this defense. Williams v.
State, 544 So.2d at 792 ("[T]here is no
probability, much less a reasonable probability as
required by law, that this material would have
altered the outcome of the trial.").
In his federal
habeas petition, Williams requested an evidentiary
hearing on the issue of the "materiality" of the
gang rape evidence. The district court denied
Williams's request, holding that the Mississippi
Supreme Court had not unreasonably applied the
Brady/Bagley standard.
In evaluating "materiality"
under the Brady/Bagley standard, the question
is whether there is a reasonable probability that
the jury would have determined that the murder did
not occur in the course of a kidnaping, if the
prosecutor had not suppressed the gang-rape evidence.
Aside from the condition of Pierce's body, there is
still ample evidence of kidnaping: the evidence
showed that Williams tackled Pierce and dragged her
into the woods, that Pierce asked to go back to the
bar but Williams refused; and that Pierce was high
and drunk on the night of her murder.
Thus, we are in
full agreement with the trial court, the Mississippi
Supreme Court, and the district court that the
statements relating to the gang rape are not
material under the Brady/Bagley standard;
that is, even if the prosecutor had revealed these
statements to Williams and Williams had used these
statements in his defense, the jury nevertheless
would have found him guilty of murder during the
course of a kidnaping. Accordingly, we find that the
district court's holding that the Mississippi
Supreme Court reasonably applied federal law with
respect to Williams's Brady claim is not
debatable among reasonable jurists.
C
Finally, we
evaluate Williams's claim that his constitutional
rights were violated because the jury that re-sentenced
him was not instructed on the elements of kidnaping.
The Mississippi Supreme Court first found this claim
procedurally barred because Williams had failed to
make a contemporaneous objection to the jury charge.
Williams v. State, 684 So.2d 1179, 1189
(Miss.1996); see also Cole v. State, 525
So.2d 365, 369 (Miss. 1987)(holding that the
contemporaneous objection rule applies fully in
death penalty cases).
In the alternative,
the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed the merits
of the claim. It held that Williams was "not
entitled to attempt to prove to the [sentencing]
jury that he did not commit kidnaping [and to allow
Williams to do so], would fly in the face of this
Court's prior affirmance of [his] conviction." Id.
at 1190.
In denying
Williams's federal habeas petition, the district
court addressed the Mississippi Supreme Court's
ruling on the merits; it did not resolve the claim
on the basis of the procedural bar. The district
court found that the failure to give a kidnaping
instruction during a re-sentencing proceeding
involving a new sentencing jury does not amount to a
denial of due process.
Consequently, it
found that the Mississippi Supreme Court's analogous
holding was not an unreasonable application of
federal law. We need not address the substance of
the claim because it is clear that the Mississippi
Supreme Court correctly applied the procedural bar.
The district court's decision to deny habeas relief
on this claim is therefore not debatable among
reasonable jurists.2
A state court may
deny relief on procedural grounds and then reach the
merits of the claim in the alternative. "[A] state
court need not fear reaching the merits of a federal
claim in an alternative holding. By its very
definition, the adequate and independent state-ground
doctrine requires the federal courts to honor a
state holding that is a sufficient basis for the
state court judgment, even when the state court also
relied on federal law." Harris v. Reed, 489
U.S. 255, 264 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308
(1989). In sum, the Mississippi Supreme Court's
ruling on the merits need not be addressed if its
invocation of the procedural bar was
constitutionally appropriate.
The Supreme Court
has held that procedural bars are cognizable in
habeas cases where (1) there is an independent and
adequate state procedural rule and (2) the
petitioner does not demonstrate both cause for the
default and actual prejudice as a result of the
violation of federal law, or demonstrate that a
failure to consider the claims will result in a "miscarriage
of justice." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.
722, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991);
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 86, 97 S.Ct.
2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977).
Williams argues
that the state procedural bar in this case is
inadequate because the Mississippi Supreme Court has
applied the bar in death penalty cases in an
inconsistent, almost random, fashion. In making this
argument, Williams bears the "burden of showing that
the state did not strictly or regularly follow a
procedural bar around the time of his direct
appeal." Stokes v. Anderson, 123 F.3d 858,
860 (5th Cir.1997) (citations omitted); see also
Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 587, 108
S.Ct. 1981, 100 L.Ed.2d 575 (1988)("A state
procedural rule is not adequate unless it is
strictly and regularly followed."). Williams must
demonstrate that "the state has failed to apply the
procedural bar to claims identical or similar to
those raised by [Williams] himself." Id.
Williams points to one case only to satisfy this
burden Hunter v. State, 684 So.2d 625
(Miss.1996).
In Hunter,
the defendant was convicted of murder during the
course of a robbery. At the guilt phase of the trial,
the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the
elements of robbery. The Mississippi Supreme Court
found this failure to be a reversible error
despite the fact that the defendant had not
contemporaneously objected to the jury charge. Id.
at 635.
The defendant's
claim in Hunter substantially differs from
the claim made here. In Hunter, the failure
to instruct occurred at the guilt phase of the trial.
It was Hunter's actual conviction for capital murder
that was at issue. Here, Williams had already been
convicted of murder during the course of a kidnaping
neither the fact of his conviction nor his guilt
was in question.
On the other hand,
the sentencing jury's charge was to find and then
weigh statutorily defined aggravating and
mitigating circumstances. See MISS. CODE ANN.
§ 99-19-101. In Mississippi, one of the aggravating
circumstances (i.e., aggravators) is kidnaping.
However, unlike a conviction determination, the
sentencing jury is not required to focus on each
element of kidnaping, but instead on weighing the
aggravated nature of the kidnaping against the
mitigators. Compare MISS. CODE ANN. § 97-3-53
(defining the elements of kidnaping for the purpose
of a kidnaping conviction) with MISS. CODE
ANN. § 99-19-101 (listing kidnaping in a series of
possible aggravating circumstances); see also
Conley v. State, 790 So.2d 773, 794 (Miss.2001)(interpreting
the elements of kidnaping for a kidnaping conviction).
In sum, the two cases are rationally distinguishable
and the Mississippi Supreme Court's applying the
procedural bar in Williams and not in
Hunter is neither random nor arbitrary.
Hunter is therefore inapt, and the procedural
bar is adequate.
Given the
procedural bar, for us to reach the merits of the
claim, Williams must show either (1) that there was
cause for his failure to object and prejudice from
the failure to consider the alleged violation of
federal law or (2) that there was a miscarriage of
justice when the state court failed to consider the
merits of the claim. See Coleman v. Thompson,
501 U.S. 722, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640
(1991).
Williams does not
give any reason for his failure to object to the
sentencing jury charge. There is no cause.
Furthermore, the failure to instruct did not
prejudice Williams or result in a miscarriage of
justice.
At the sentencing
proceeding, the parties vigorously litigated the
kidnaping aggravator. Both parties introduced
evidence that went straight to the question of
whether Williams dragged Pierce into the woods
against her will. It is true that the prosecutor
introduced the kidnaping conviction admittedly
powerful evidence for the state's case at the
sentencing. The trial court nevertheless required
the sentencing jury to find the kidnaping aggravator
beyond a reasonable doubt.3
The evidence is more than ample to support the
jury's finding. Consequently, we find no prejudice
or miscarriage of justice here.
Because Williams
has not shown (1) that the procedural bar was
inadequate, or (2) that there is a reason for his
failure to object and further that the failure to
object resulted in actual prejudice, or (3) that the
failure to consider these claims resulted in a
miscarriage of justice, we hold that the district
court's decision denying relief on this claim is not
debatable among reasonable jurists. We therefore
deny Williams's request for a COA on this claim.
IV
In sum, we hold
that Williams has not made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right with respect to
any of his claims. Williams has not substantiated
his claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence
to support the kidnaping conviction; (2) he was
entitled to have the prosecutor turn over evidence
relating to Pierce's gang-rape; and (3) he was
entitled to have the sentencing jury instructed on
the elements of kidnaping. Williams's request for a
certificate of appealability on each of these claims
is
Evans recanted the testimony
he gave in Williams's first trial in a 1985
sworn affidavit. In 1990, Evans recanted this
recantation. In evaluating the impact of these
recantations, the Mississippi Supreme Court
found that: Evans in his 1985 recantation
affidavit never stated that he perjured his
testimony during the 1983 trial. Nor does Evans
claim to have changed his testimony due to any "deal."
He merely states that his testimony was "colored."
Later, in the 1990 sentencing hearing Evans
returned to his 1983 trial testimony stating
that he had no deal with the prosecution before
December of 1983, and that he told the truth
back then during the original trial.... Because
of these facts, not only is the 1985 recanting
testimony of Evans suspicious, it appears
untruthful. We hold that it does not undermine
the original verdict against Williams
Williams v.
State, 669 So.2d at 54. Williams failed to
challenge this determination by the Mississippi
Supreme Court in his federal habeas petition.
Williams has never asserted, much less proved,
that Evans gave perjured testimony. The district
court, therefore, did not err in considering
Evans's original testimony when deciding whether
the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably
applied the relevant standard to Williams's
sufficiency of the evidence claim.
With respect to each claim in
a COA request, we are, in effect, evaluating the
final decision of the district court denying the
habeas petition asking whether this decision
itself is debatable among reasonable jurists
Williams also argues that the
trial court invoked the principles of collateral
estoppel at sentencing and that such a use of
estoppel is unconstitutional. The courts are
split on the question of whether the use of
collateral estoppel against a criminal defendant
comports with the right to a jury trialSee
United States v. Gallardo-Mendez, 150 F.3d
1240, 1242 n. 3 (10th Cir.1998)("There is a
clear split among our sister circuits that have
ruled on the question of whether the government
may use the doctrine of collateral estoppel to
preclude a criminal defendant from raising an
issue adjudicated in a prior criminal proceeding.").
That being said, this case does not involve the
application of collateral estoppel against
Williams. The trial court did not find the
kidnaping aggravator as a matter of law
based on the kidnaping conviction.