Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Caruso

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 20, 2015

PHILLIP BROWN, Petitioner,
v.
PATRICIA CARUSO, Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PATRICK J. DUGGAN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Phillip Brown, a state prisoner, filed this habeas case under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254. On June 12, 2014, the Court issued its Opinion and Order denying the petition but granting a certificate of appealability with respect to Claims I, II, III, IV, V, VI, XV, and XXVII. Presently before the Court is Petitioner's motion for reconsideration, asserting that the Court erred in its factual findings and analysis of several of Petitioner's claims.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F.Supp.2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled, but also that a different disposition of the case will result from a correction thereof. A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F.Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Factual Findings of Court

The motion first asserts that the Court erred in its factual findings. Petitioner argues that the Court incorrectly stated that "Pardy's wife and father arrived at Petitioner's house and discovered that Pardy was dead." The statement is correct. The record shows that when the pair arrived at the scene an officer informed them that the victim had died. T I, p. 162. The Court did not state or suggest that Pardy's wife or father were the ones who first found the victim.

Next, Petitioner asserts that the Court erroneously stated that there was blood found throughout the kitchen and bathroom. The Court's statement is correct. Droplets of blood were found on the kitchen floor, T I, p. 244, blood was found on different locations of the refrigerator, id., p. 245-246, and blood was found in the bathroom. Id., pp. 175-176, 216-217, 266. Blood and tissue were also found on the knife in the bathroom. T I, pp. 243, 256-276. In any event, the relevance of the blood at trial was not the amount found, but that it indicated that the victim retreated and barricaded himself in the bathroom, undermining Petitioner's self-defense claim.

Petitioner also asserts that the Court erroneously stated that Petitioner was arrested in Georgia when in fact he turned himself in to police the day following the crime. The police witnesses testified that Petitioner fled to Georgia following the homicide. There, he was arrested and his car was impounded, T II, pp. 176-177, 212, and he was later extradited to Michigan. T II, p. 212. Petitioner testified in his own defense that he turned himself in. T III, p. 189. Petitioner's defense counsel in closing argument tried to explain why Petitioner fled to Georgia after the homicide. T IV, p. 239.

Petitioner asserts that the Court unfairly referred to the knife used to stab the victim as a "hunting knife." The knife was admitted as an exhibit at trial. It was described as a heavy two-sided knife, serrated on one side, and sharp on both sides. T I, pp. 243, 256-276. The Court's description is a fair representation of the record evidence.

Petitioner asserts that there were no bloody footprints found on the inside of the bathroom door. This assertion is correct. The police testimony indicated that footprints from the victim's shoes were found on the inside of the bathroom door. T I, pp. 268-274. The officer did not state that the prints were made with blood. The mistake, however, is not significant. The relevance of the footprint on the inside of the bathroom door was that it suggested that the victim had attempted to barricade himself inside after being shot with the arrow-undermining the self-defense claim. It is irrelevant what substance made the impression on the door.

Finally, Petitioner asserts that there was no evidence that the victim was wounded in different parts of the house. The blood trail evidence shows that the victim was shot with the arrow outside of the bathroom and that he was stabbed on floor of the bathroom.

None of the alleged inaccuracies in the Court's description of the record evidence show that a different ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.