Fox v. Walz

Background

Thomas James Fox was convicted under Minnesota law of first-degree murder and first-degree felony murder. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed his convictions, and the United States Supreme Court denied review. Fox later filed two state post-conviction petitions; both were denied, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed those decisions.

Fox then filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person in state custody to seek federal review of a state conviction. He claimed that the trial court improperly admitted statements he made to police because he did not waive his Miranda rights; that the prosecution failed to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt; and that he received ineffective assistance from his trial and appellate lawyers.

Timeliness and actual innocence

The magistrate judge recommended denying the petition as untimely and rejecting Fox’s arguments for equitable tolling and actual innocence. Equitable tolling is an exception that can extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances. Fox did not challenge the finding that his petition was untimely under the applicable one-year limitations period, and he did not challenge the finding that equitable tolling did not apply. His only objection concerned whether actual innocence excused the late filing.

The court explained that a petitioner may use a credible actual-innocence showing as a gateway past the filing deadline. To meet that demanding standard, the petitioner must provide new reliable evidence—such as scientific, eyewitness, or physical evidence—that was not presented at trial and must show that, considering that evidence, no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fox argued that hair had been found in the victim’s hands and that testing would show it was not his hair. He argued that this would prove his innocence and that the court could not rule on the petition before allowing the hair to be tested. The court agreed with the magistrate judge that Fox had not met the required threshold. His theory depended on a series of assumptions and was unsupported by actual new evidence. The court therefore found the proposed evidence speculative and insufficient to establish actual innocence.

The court also rejected Fox’s discovery argument. It concluded that his speculative claims about the hair did not meet the credibility threshold required to justify further investigation or discovery. The court noted that the petition’s untimeliness independently prevented discovery.

Ruling

After reviewing the disputed portions of the magistrate judge’s recommendation anew, Judge David S. Doty overruled Fox’s objections and adopted the recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Fox’s § 2254 petition, dismissed the action with prejudice, and issued no certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is required before a petitioner may appeal an adverse ruling in this type of case, and the court determined that reasonable judges would not disagree with its assessment.