Thoresen v. Wheeler

Background

Joseph Christian Thoresen was serving a life sentence without the possibility of release after a Minnesota jury convicted him of first-degree premeditated murder. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the conviction, and the United States Supreme Court denied review. Thoresen later pursued state requests for additional forensic testing and post-conviction relief, but the state courts denied those requests.

Thoresen then filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a state prisoner to seek federal relief when the state custody violates the Constitution or federal law. He raised eight grounds, including insufficient evidence, flawed witness testimony, judicial error, withheld evidence, faulty DNA testing, defective search warrants, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended denying the petition. Thoresen filed six objections.

Court’s analysis

The court overruled the first objection because the claims concerning corroboration of accomplice testimony and additional DNA testing involved state law, not a federal constitutional or federal-law violation that could support relief under Section 2254.

The court overruled the second and third objections concerning flawed testimony, judicial error, withheld social-media posts, search warrants, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. It held that these claims were procedurally defaulted under Minnesota’s rule generally barring claims that were known but not raised on direct appeal. The court concluded that Thoresen had not shown an external reason excusing the default and had not presented new evidence demonstrating actual innocence. It therefore held that federal habeas review of those claims was unavailable.

The court separately addressed Thoresen’s claim under Brady v. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to disclose favorable evidence that is material to the defense. The court accepted the state courts’ conclusion that three withheld interviews were not material. One interview concerned the origin of a baseball bat, another was vague about whether another person was involved, and the third concerned two men seen entering a car. The court concluded that these interviews would not have created a reasonable probability of a different verdict because substantial other evidence supported the conviction. The state courts therefore had not unreasonably applied federal law or unreasonably determined the facts.

Disposition

Judge Tunheim overruled Thoresen’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The order denied Thoresen’s habeas petition, dismissed the action with prejudice, and declined to certify any issue for appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).