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.

Ewing v. Horton

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

November 20, 2017

DARRELL EWING, Petitioner,
v.
CONNIE HORTON, [1]Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

          HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Darrell Rashard Ewing, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, through his attorneys Phillip D. Comorski and Byron Pitts, challenging his convictions for first-degree murder, M.C.L. § 750.316, three counts of assault with intent to commit murder, M.C.L. § 750.83, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), M.C.L. § 750.227b. For the reasons that follow, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.

         I. Background

         Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court, in which he was jointly tried with his co-defendant Derrico Devon Searcy. This Court recites verbatim the relevant facts relied upon by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which are presumed correct on habeas review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). See e.g. Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009):

These consolidated appeals arise from a shooting at the intersection of Harper and Van Dyke, in the city of Detroit on December 29, 2009. At the time of the shooting, J.B. Watson and his girlfriend, LaRita Thomas, were in Thomas's van along with Phillip Reed and Willie Williams. The van was stopped at the intersection of Harper and Van Dyke in Detroit for a traffic signal. Raymond Love testified that while driving on Harper, a turquoise vehicle turned onto Harper and the two vehicles drove side by side for a short while. Love identified the driver of the turquoise vehicle as Searcy. In that turquoise vehicle, there were also two other black males, one of which was later identified as Ewing. When Love reached the red traffic light at the Van Dyke intersection, the turquoise car pulled to the curb, staying back about six or seven car lengths. Ewing then exited the vehicle with a handgun drawn, approached Thomas's van, and fired many shots into the rear of the van. After shooting, Ewing retreated to the turquoise car, which by that time had moved into the middle of Harper, and the car left in the opposite direction on Harper.
Watson died of injuries he received from the gunshot wounds. Reed was injured in the attack, with a bullet striking him in his left hand. Watson, Reed, and Williams are cousins and members of a gang identified as the Knock Out Boys (KOB). Searcy and Ewing were alleged to be members of a rival gang called the Hustle Boys.

People v. Searcy, No. 301751, 2013 WL 4609125, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2013).

         Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal. Id., lv. den. 495 Mich. 935, 843 N.W.2d 200 (2014).

         Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following grounds:

I. Petitioner's due process rights were violated when the trial court failed to give the deadlocked jury instruction, thereby depriving petitioner of his federal constitutional rights of due process of law and a fair and impartial verdict, as guaranteed under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
II. Petitioner was denied a fair trial and impartial jury under the federal constitution where, during jury deliberations, the jurors brought in extraneous information from Facebook and the internet about petitioner Ewing, Mr. Watson, gangs, and gang pecking orders, and the jurors used this information to convict petitioner Ewing.
III. Where Tyree Washington signed an affidavit after trial in which he confessed to the instant offenses, this newly discovered evidence requires that this petition be granted or, at least, that an evidentiary hearing be ordered.

         II. Standard of Review

         28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), imposes the following standard of review for habeas cases:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

         A decision of a state court is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000). An “unreasonable application” occurs when “a state court decision unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the facts of a prisoner's case.” Id. at 409. A federal habeas court may not “issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Id. at 410-11.

         III. Discussion

         The Court will first discuss petitioner's second claim, because this is the claim upon which the Court grants relief. Petitioner alleges that his due process rights were violated by introduction of extraneous internet evidence brought into jury deliberations by two jurors, which compromised jury deliberations.

         The trial court initially addressed the use of internet information prior to trial, when the assistant prosecutor requested to amend her witness list to add Police Officer Terri Graves to testify as an ...


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.