Melvin Bonnell v. Bill Cool, Warden
DueProcess HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
When bad faith is uncovered years after the petitioner fully litigated his initial habeas petition, should a Youngblood claim be considered newly ripened and therefore not subject to the petition requirements of § 2244, consistent with Panetti v. Quarterman
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In a case where the jury sentenced petitioner to death only after an Allen charge, the State—in bad faith—withheld and then destroyed evidence with obvious exculpatory value. In 2020, petitioner discovered what the district court described as “previously unavailable evidence of the State’s bad faith” and timely presented a due process claim under Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988). The district court and the Sixth Circuit also found that, at all times, Mr. Bonnell acted with due diligence pursuant to § 2244(b). But for the State’s bad faith, Mr. Bonnell would have uncovered and perhaps saved evidence (that no longer exists) with obvious exculpatory value. The questions presented are: 1. When bad faith is uncovered years after the petitioner fully litigated his initial habeas petition, should a Youngblood claim be considered newly ripened and therefore not subject to the petition requirements of § 2244, consistent with Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007)? 2. Where a petitioner acted with due diligence and there has been no abuse of the writ, may § 2244(b) be construed to categorically exclude consideration of a meritorious Youngblood claim because the “actual innocence” standard can never be met when the government in bad faith destroyed the “potentially useful” exculpatory evidence? ‘ PROCEEDINGS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE 1. Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court Opinion Sentencing Bonnell to death: State v. Bonnell, No. CR-87-223820-ZA, Journal Entry (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. May 25, 1988); 2. Eighth District Court of Appeals Opinion Affirming Conviction: State v. Bonnell, No. 55927, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 4982 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 5, 1989); 3. Ohio Supreme Court Direct Appeal Opinion: State v. Bonnell, No. 89-2136, 573 N.E.2d 1082 (Ohio May 21, 1991); 4. United States Supreme Court denial of certiorari: State v. Bonnell, No. 91-6740, 502 U.S. 1107 (Feb. 24, 1992); 5. Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court Decision Denying Bonnell’s Motion to Vacate or Set aside Judgement: State v. Bonnell, No. CR-87-223820-ZA, Journal Entry (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Oct. 16, 1995); 6. Eighth District Court of Appeals Opinion Affirming Denial of Bonnell’s Motion to Vacate: State v. Bonnell, No. 69835, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 3943 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 27, 1998); 7. Ohio Supreme Court Decision Dismissing Appeal: State v. Bonnell, No. 98-2113, 704 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio Jan. 20, 1999); 8. District Court First Federal Habeas Decision: Bonnell v. Mitchell, No. OOCV250, 301 F.Supp.2d 698 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 04, 2004); 9. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals First Federal Habeas Decision: Bonnell v. Mitchell, No. 04-3301, 212 F. App’x 517 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2007); 10. Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law Denying Defendant’s Application for DNA testing: State v. Bonnell, No. CR-87223820-ZA, Journal Entry (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Oct. 21, 2005); 11. Eighth District Court of Appeals Opinion Dismissing Bonnell’s Appeal and Affirming the Denial of his DNA Application: State v. Bonnell, No. 15-102630, 2015 WL 6797870 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2014); 12. Ohio Supreme Court Decision Affirming Denial of DNA Application: State v. Bonnell, No. 2013-0167, 119 N.E.3d 1285 (Ohio Jan. 7, 2014); 13. Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law Denying Defendant’s Application for DNA testing: State v. Bonnell, No. CR-87223820-ZA, Journal Entry (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Aug. 14, 2017); ii 14. United States Supreme Court denial of certiorari: State v. Bonnell, No. 18-8569, 139 S. Ct. 2644 (May 28, 2019); 15. District Court Federal Habeas Decision: Bonnell v. Mitchell, No. 1:21CV1604, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47913 (N.D. Ohio, Mar. 21, 2023); and 16. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Federal Habeas Decision: In re Bonnell, No. 233235, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20467 (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023). ili