McCarthy v. Frauenheim

Background

James T. McCarthy, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, filed this self-represented action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking a court order reviewing his state convictions. His original petition raised six categories of claims, including prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, trial-court error, judicial bias, insufficient evidence, and denial of access to sealed records.

The court previously dismissed the prosecutorial-misconduct claim as procedurally barred and dismissed the ineffective-assistance and trial-error claims as unexhausted. After the case was stayed while McCarthy returned to state court, he filed an amended petition containing Claims 2 through 6. On July 13, 2020, the court denied the amended petition on the merits and denied a certificate of appealability. The Ninth Circuit later denied McCarthy’s request for a certificate of appealability and denied reconsideration en banc.

Motion for relief from judgment

McCarthy moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows limited relief from a final judgment, including for certain mistakes or fraud. He argued that the court had made a mistake by disregarding police case notes, CALICO interview transcripts, and preliminary-hearing transcripts. He also alleged that Jane Doe and the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office conspired to present false testimony and thereby committed fraud on the court.

Alleged mistake

The court held that McCarthy’s arguments concerning the CALICO interview transcript and police case notes had already been presented in his amended habeas petition and rejected on the merits. The earlier ruling found that trial counsel’s investigation was reasonable and that McCarthy had not shown prejudice from counsel’s failure to obtain those materials.

The court explained that counsel had a detailed understanding of matters that could have challenged Jane Doe’s credibility, including her prior abuse, rape, possible alcohol-abuse problem, the layout of the Land Rover, and McCarthy’s work schedule. The court also found that the subjects counsel allegedly failed to investigate were already known to counsel, not exculpatory, or excluded from evidence. The court further noted that the trial included Jane Doe’s testimony, mixed semen and saliva samples, a contemporaneous note, and a jailhouse call and testimony concerning at least one instance of sexual contact.

The court therefore denied the motion to set aside the judgment on the alleged-mistake basis.

Alleged fraud on the court

The court treated McCarthy’s arguments about the preliminary-hearing transcripts and alleged false testimony as a restatement of his earlier prosecutorial-misconduct claim. It held that McCarthy could not avoid the prior procedural bar by presenting that claim as fraud.

The court also held that McCarthy had not shown fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence. It explained that fraud on the court requires an unconscionable plan or scheme designed to improperly influence the court’s decision. In the court’s view, inconsistencies among Jane Doe’s trial testimony and earlier statements did not conclusively show that she lied or that the prosecution knew she was presenting false testimony. The court also stated that those inconsistencies did not conclusively establish McCarthy’s innocence and that substantial trial evidence supported the jury’s guilty verdicts.

Disposition

The court denied McCarthy’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. It denied the motion based on both alleged mistake and alleged fraud and terminated docket entry 51. The opinion’s caption identifies the respondent as Craig Koenig, although the supplied case metadata names the case as McCarthy v. Frauenheim.