Emanuel M. Sistrunk v. Nicholas Armenakis

271 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2001) EMANUEL M. SISTRUNK, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. NICHOLAS ARMENAKIS, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE. No. 99-36000 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued and Submitted September 13, 2000 Filed October 16, 2001 As Amended November 30, 2001 Dennis N. Balske, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Portland, Oregon, for the appellant. Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, Oregon, for the appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-96-06279-JMSBefore: Kozinski and Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges, and Schwarzer, * District Judge. Opinion by Judge Kleinfeld; Dissent by Judge KOZINSKI Kleinfeld, Circuit Judge. 1 This case involves a procedurally barred habeas petition. The issue is whether the petitioner has presented evidence of actual innocence sufficiently strong to avoid the procedural barriers to raising an issue that would otherwise be procedurally barred. Facts 2 In 1986, Sistrunk was convicted of forcibly raping a little girl. His jury trial took place in an Oregon state court, and he was sentenced to thirty years of imprisonment with a…

dissenting:

Emanuel Sistrunk has served almost fifteen years for a crime he probably did not commit. Sistrunk was convicted of raping Jane Roe, * an eleven-year-old girl. Roe testified that the crime occurred in a garage owned by a third party unconnected to either Sistrunk or herself. No one else saw Sistrunk with the victim, or anywhere near the garage on the day of the crime. The prosecution presented no semen, blood, hair, DNA or fibers connecting Sis-trunk to the crime. A trench coat allegedly worn by the perpetrator, and used by *1182 Mm during the crime, was never recovered. The prosecution’s entire case hinged on Roe’s testimony and her identification of Sistrunk as the rapist.

The testimony of a victim — particularly a very young one — is a highly tenuous ground on which to rest a conviction. A jury might develop a reasonable doubt from the total absence of corroborating evidence. If the jury nevertheless convicts, we are bound by that determination. However, when the state’s case is so heavily dependent on a single witness, errors affecting the witness’s credibility take on enormous significance. Here, there is strong reason to believe that the jury’s decision to…

Opinion by Judge KLEINFELD; Dissent by Judge KOZINSKI

This case involves a procedurally barred habeas petition. The issue is whether the petitioner has presented evidence of actual innocence sufficiently strong to avoid the procedural barriers to raising an issue that would otherwise be procedurally barred.

Facts

In 1986, Sistrunk was convicted of forcibly raping a little girl. His jury trial took place in an Oregon state court, and he was sentenced to thirty years of imprisonment with a fifteen year minimum. He appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals and petitioned for review to the Oregon Supreme Court without success. 1 He then petitioned for post-conviction relief in state court. Both that petition and his appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals were denied, 2 but he did not seek review by the Oregon Supreme Court of his failed petition. He then filed a second state post-conviction relief proceeding with unfavorable results, lost on his appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals, and unsuccessfully petitioned for review to the Oregon Supreme Court. 3 Finally, he filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficiency of…