In what can only be described as a stunning development, the Sixth Circuit vacated on habeas review a state court murder conviction and ordered the accused be set free in Tanner v. Yukins. The upshot is that an individual, Hattie Tanner, that, according to the Sixth Circuit, only a crazy person could find guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution will be released after about 17 years in prison.
Tanner was charged and ultimately found guilty of killing a bartender in 1995 in Battle Creek, Michigan. Her trial took place in 2000. After her trial in the Circuit Court for Calhoun County, Michigan, Tanner appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which reversed her convictions and ordered a new trial, ruling that the trial judge had erred in denying funds to obtain and present testimony from a serology expert. But a majority of the Michigan Supreme Court disagreed and reinstated Tanner's murder conviction. It is notable that now former Justice Marilyn Kelly dissented.
As others have, Tanner persisted and filed on her own pro se a habeas petition that a federal district court denied 12 years ago in 2005. A prison guard impeded Tanner's effort to appeal this decision: the Sixth Circuit noted that Tanner sued the prison guard for this wrongful act and a "jury found in her favor and awarded compensatory and punitive damages." See also Tanner v. Yukins, 776 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2015). Eventually and against all odds, Tanner was able to appeal the denial of her habeas petition to the Sixth Circuit, albeit some 10 years or so later. It would seem that these 10 or so additional years of imprisonment due to the guard's wrongful actions might also be compensable.
On habeas review following the enactment of the detestable Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a federal court can only grant relief in two types of instances: (1) where the state court's decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court; and, (2) where the state court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. Put in plainer terms, a federal appeals court can only reverse a state court judgment in this context when the state courts have gone so far off the rails as appear to be plumb crazy.
So here's the recap: (1) Hattie Tanner spent about 17 years in prison on a charge that, according to the Sixth Circuit, only a crazy person would think she committed; (2) along the way as Tanner was attempting to defend herself at the fair trial she was supposed to get but didn't a Michigan state trial court judge stupidly denied her opportunity to present testimony from a serology expert; and, (3) a prison guard so intent on keeping Tanner locked up that he or she interfered with her engagement with the legal system was sued successfully by Tanner, who was awarded both compensatory and punitive damages.
The Sixth Circuit's opinion was authored by Judge Karen Nelson Moore and joined by Senior Judge Martha Daughtrey and Judge Raymond Kethledge.
