Allwine v. Bolin

Background

Stephen Allwine was convicted in Minnesota state court of first-degree murder for the death of his wife. After two unsuccessful state appeals, he filed a federal petition seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The claims relevant to these motions included alleged violations involving disclosure of favorable evidence, false testimony, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct.

The court considered two non-dispositive motions: Allwine’s Motion to Compel and Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. The respondent opposed both motions and argued that Allwine’s habeas claims were procedurally defaulted. The court did not address that argument at this stage.

Motion to Compel

A habeas petitioner is not automatically entitled to discovery. Under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the petitioner must show good cause, meaning that fully developing the facts could show an entitlement to habeas relief.

The court concluded that Allwine had not made that showing for any of his requests. The requests included:

- Trail-camera images from November 13, 2016. The court noted that information from the camera had been disclosed in writing during the state proceedings, and Allwine did not explain why that description was insufficient or how the images would establish entitlement to habeas relief. - A hard copy of Investigator Jonathan Banks’s notes and emails. Allwine said these materials would support his ineffective-assistance claim and help establish the victim’s time of death, but he did not explain how they could show a reasonable probability that the trial’s result would have been different. - A hard copy of a Bitcoin address and an image of Allwine’s cellphone. Allwine characterized these materials as favorable and impeaching evidence, but offered no evidence that the prosecution suppressed them, that they were favorable, or that they were material to the state proceedings. - Additional emails in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s possession involving the screen names DogdayGod and Besa Mafia. The court found that Allwine had not shown that the prosecution suppressed the emails or that they would change the trial’s outcome, considering the evidence and the state’s theory of the case. - Emails between the victim and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and an image of Allwine’s laptop. The court found no showing that the materials were suppressed or that they would change the outcome in light of other evidence presented at trial. - A list of cases in which computer-forensics expert Mark Lanterman had been qualified as an expert witness. Allwine did not provide evidence that the list would favor him, had been suppressed, or would alter the trial’s outcome. - SuperAmerica surveillance video. Allwine alleged Brady and Napue violations, but the court noted that his own motion indicated police reports said the prosecution never collected the footage. He also did not provide evidence that testimony about the video was false or that prosecutors knowingly failed to correct false testimony. - Police reports listed in the state’s discovery disclosure. The court found that Allwine’s argument was speculative because he acknowledged that his own counsel might have the reports. He did not show that the prosecution suppressed them, that they were favorable, or that they would have changed the trial’s outcome. - Allegedly missing Bureau of Criminal Apprehension crime-scene photographs and laboratory reports. Allwine did not show that the state suppressed the materials, that they were favorable or impeaching, or that they would have changed the outcome. - Incoming and outgoing call and text logs from five phone numbers. The court found that Allwine offered no evidence that the logs were suppressed or that the state knowingly failed to correct false testimony.

Because Allwine failed to show good cause for discovery, the court denied the Motion to Compel in its entirety.

Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing

Allwine requested a hearing on his ineffective-assistance and prosecutorial-misconduct claims. The court explained that state-court factual findings are generally presumed correct, and that a petitioner who did not develop the factual basis of a claim in state court must satisfy the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) before receiving a federal evidentiary hearing.

The court reviewed the petition, the government’s responses, briefs, two Minnesota Supreme Court decisions related to the state proceedings, and numerous exhibits from both sides. It concluded that the record was sufficiently developed to decide Allwine’s claims and that he had offered only general allegations without identifying the evidence he would present at a hearing. The court therefore found that an evidentiary hearing did not appear necessary and denied the Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing.

Disposition

The court ordered that Allwine’s Motion to Compel, Document 34, was DENIED, and that his Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, Document 35, was DENIED. This order did not resolve the respondent’s procedural-default arguments or decide the merits of Allwine’s underlying habeas petition.