Bell v. Thompson
Thompson was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death by the State of Tennessee. In his post-conviction appeals, Thompson argued that his trial attorney had failed to thoroughly investigate and present evidence of his mental illness. After the federal district court denied his habeas petition, Thompson filed a Rule 60(b) motion, asking the district court to reconsider its denial in light of expert testimony that had inadvertently been omitted from the record presented to the district court. The district court denied the motion and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is bound by the facts as found by the district court, affirmed the denial of Thompson's habeas petition.
Acting on the assumption that Thompson had exhausted every avenue of appeal, the State of Tennessee set an execution date for August, 2004. In June 2004, however, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion reversing its prior denial of habeas relief and remanding the case to the federal district court for consideration of new evidence.An appellate court judge had independently reviewed the entire record of the case after his law clerk had found the expert testimony that strongly suggested that Thompson had been suffering from a severe mental illness at the time he committed the crime. The Sixth Circuit used its "inherent equitable power" to supplement the record on appeal, giving as reasons that the evidence was negligently omitted from the district court record, the evidence is highly probative of Thompson’s mental state at the time of the crime, there is no surprise to the state (the state's counsel took the deposition of the expert), and because Thompson was sentenced to death.
Question Presented:
Did the Sixth Circuit abuse its discretion by withdrawing its opinion affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief six months after Fed. R. App. P.
41(d)(2)(D) made issuance of the mandate mandatory, without notice to the parties or any finding that the court's action was necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice, particularly where state
judicial proceedings to enforce the inmate's death sentence had progressed in reliance upon the finality of the judgment in the federal habeas proceedings?
