Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Maurice Walker, Petitioner v. Nicholas Lamb, Warden

No.

2ft - 53 36

FILED

JUL 0 7 2023

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MAURICE WALKER

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

WILLIAM SPERFLAGY-Warden

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

US Court of Appeals *8th Cir. No. 22-3093

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

MAURICE WALIER-Pro se

(Your Name)

ASP 406 N High St.

(Address)

Anamosa, Iowa 52205-1157

(City, State, Zip Code)

N/A

(Phone Number)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1) In this case the Uniform (Iowa) Jury Instructions were used and

presented to the Jury, where Felony Murder-Rule was applied. The

Jury convicted Walker upon 2 different theories of murder. They

submitted a guikty verdict that was incomplete as to what theory

of Law Walker was actually convited on. This error harmed WAlker

by the jury not stating which theory he was donvicted under,

Violating Due Process. Each theory carries a different requirement

of Proof, changing the dynamics of reasonable doubt. (See Realted Cases).

Does not the law and in the interest of Justice, REquire REVERSAL

& REMAND, In this case??

2) THe trial attorney in this trial case Ms. Dalton, failed in her

legal and ethnical duty to properly represent MAurice Walker in a

Felony—Murder Trial. She did not even investigate the Murder scene,

or request and make a Motion for the testing of all Kinds of DNA

evidence like, BLood, Skin & Hair DNA samples that were present but

not tested. THere was Hair DNA in the ski-mask and under Renee Walkers

fingernails, that was never tested. Dalton never properly interviewed

witnesses or listen to information from Mr. Walker her own client.

She failed to object to the Jury Instructions and the fact that the

Jury came back with an incomplete code & verdict. She failed to object

to an unfair practice

of a Prejudicial Jury selection of No African-

AMericans on the Jury. THere is fact that all the above statements

are true and correct and a violation of ineffective Counsel.

Did Mr. Walker really recieve the meaningful and required repre­

sentation that the U.S. Constitution guarentee's??

3) A United States District Court Judge, Rebeks Goodman, in a preHabeas (before briefs were filed) Ruled that Walker could not use

a claim based upon STATE V HEEMSTRA, Id. Where reversal is rquired

when there are 2 different kinds of Murder theorys submitted to the

Jury. Which have different degree's of proof, yet the jury did

not complete their guilty verdict,on one or the other, or...

-1-

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

did the State fail to prove beyound a reasonable doubt.

Why did the US District Court Judge R. Goodman issue an order

barring Mr. Walker from using STATE V HEEMSTRA,, for this Issue,

before Habeas Breifs were even submitted and filed in this Court

violating Due Process?

4) Susan Carter and Eric Tyrell were both called as witnesses for

the State. Yet only one of them, Namely ERic Tyrell was certified

by the Court as an Expert witness based upon his education and

experiance on cell phone towers. They both testified as to the

location of MR. Walker and where his cell phone pinged at.

Susan Carter testified to a location, yet was unsure and

not factual on her assessment. SHe worked for Qwest, but in the

fraud department. NOT engineering or tower operations. She

testified to locations that were not supported by evidence, with

no experiance she lacked the education to make that determination.

ANd she was not an expert witness, and Defense should have objected.

County Attorney Wolf corrected her testimony while Tyrell testified,

Stating that her statements were false and not supported by the

evidence. Therefore perjuring himself on record and violated ethical

procedures as an officer of the Court. Committing procecuter

misconduct.

Eric Tyrell testified to a broader spectrum as to how towers

and cell phones work, when determining a location. HE went on to say

that, "Cell phone towers may list a city or town, but that the person

can be a hundread miles away in any directions from the city or

town. (See; Writ, Petition Pgs. 13,14,15). IS his expert opinon

a direct location can not be determined within 100 miles.

THe expert in this case holds more of a determination then Ms. Carter

who testified based on what she thought, not based upon scientific

evidence, nor did she know how to properly interprate it.

Why did defense Attorney Dalton not object to Susan Carters

testimony as speculation and hearsay?

Why did the Court not hold Attorney Wolf in contempt or

accountable for misleading the Jury and the COurt?

-2-

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

5) When agent Reger investigated the times of the Hotel where

MAurice Walker stayed at. He testified to a print out from the

Hotel that listed the approximate times of Walker coming in and

leaving the Hotel. In Order for a print-out or list of times that

were submitted to Agent Reger to make sense. A couple things or

terms need to be meet. That the card room reader at the hotel needs

to have been caulibrated with in the last year. And anyone entering

that room would record a time and date, whether it was a maids Master

key or a Manager’s key. The Key cards would not register an

individual card. Therfore the times on the Hotel print-out of times

could be off my hours or minutes and can not determine if it was

MR. Walker coming in or not. The proper date and time and time zone

must be entered in the Key card reader. Agent Reger even said that

there were 2-3 different sets of times, and REger was undetermined

as to the Correct date/time listed. HE Stated "That he was not sure”,

without a definite testimony with certainty this issue, Would not it

create reasonable doubt to the Court and the Jury?

(SEE: WRIT, PG.S. 15A, 15B)

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

MAURICE WALKER....

-3-

LIST OF PARTIES

[ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

5[X] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

(Served Copy by US MAil)

Attorney General

State of Iowa

Dept, of Justice

Second Floor, Hoover Building

Des Moines, Iowa 50310-0109

RELATED CASES

STATE V HEEMSTRA, 721 NW2d 549 (8-25-2006).

STAE V SMITH, 739 NW2D 289, 295 (IA 2007)

-SEE PRO SE PCR BRIEF

*SEE PETITION BRIEF

STATE V MARTENS, 569 NW2d 482, 485 (IA 2006) Citing;

HOGREFE, 557 Nw 2d 871, 881 (IA 1996).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

I & II

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

3,4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

5,6

CONCLUSION

20

WRIT PETITION...............................................................

MOTION TO COURT ON APPENDIX WAIVER..................

1-19

A

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Iowa District Court for CLinton County FECR

Trial & Convictions

APPENDIX B

Direct Appeal STATE V WALKER, 738 NW2d 662 (2007 IA.APP.CT)

LEXIS 2075 No. 7-472/06-1005 July 25, 2007 (Published)

NW Reporter.

APPENDIX C

Post-Conviction Action. District Court 927 NW2d 687,

IA App.Ct. LExis 148, No. PCCV

APPENDIX D

Post-Conviction Appeal. 927 NW2d 687, No. 16-1796 (2-6-19)

Published NW Reporter.

APPENDIX E

Post Conviction pro se Brief, PCCV

ATTACHED*

APPENDIX F

Writ of HAbeas Corpus (Denied) C0A Denied, 2022 US.Dist.

Court LEXIS 187905, 2022 WL 6829354 IA 9-15-2022.

En Banc review filed (Appeal No. 22-3093, US Dist.Ct.

Number; 4:19-cv-00185-RGE.

APPENDIX G

Recept of a Gun transfer of ownership by Notary Public

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

PEOPLE V BALD, 54 NY. Benevento, 91

STRICTLAND V WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 688, 104 S.CT. 2052

1

MASSARO V STATE 626, NW2D 134, 141 (IA 2001)

SCHRIER V STATE, 347 NW2D 657, 662 (IA 1984)

1,8,13

1

1

STATE V DEASES, 479 NW2D (IA.APP.1991)

3

STATE V PHILLIPS, 226 NW2D 16-19 (IA 1975)

3

NAPUE V ILLINOIS, 360 U.S. 269

ROSE, SUPRA, 478 U.S. AT 578, 106 S.CT. AT 3106

4 %7,13

6

SULLIVAN V LOUISIANA, 113 S.CT. 2078, 2082 1993

BERGER V U.S. 295 U.S. 78,88 (1935)

DARDEN V WAINRIGHT, 477 U.S. 161,181 (1986)

6

6

6

DONELLY V DECHRISTO 416, U.S. 637,643 (1974)

6

U.S. V LIZARDO, 445 F.3D.73,87 (1STCIR.CT.2006)

U.S. V SMITH, 982 F.2D 681,684 (1ST CIR.CT. 1993)

U.S. V JACKSON, 339 F 3D 349, 357 (5THCIR.CT2003)

DEPEW V ANDERSON, 311 F 3D 742, 749 (6THCIR.CT. 2002)

LEWIS V MAZURKIEWIEZ, 915 F 2D 106, 113 (3RD CIR.CT. 1990)

STATE V GIBLER, (iOWA APP. 2011)

6

6

7

7

7

9

STATE V STEVENS, 394 NW2D 388, (IA 1986)

STATE V DEQITT, 796 NW 2D 456, (IA 2003) IA.APP.CT LEXIS 1832)

STATE V TYLER, 867 NW 2D 136 (IA 2015)

11

11

STATE V SMITH, 739 NW2D 289,295 (IA 2007)

STATE V HEEMSTRA, 721 NW 2D 549, 558 (IA 2006)

STATE V MATENS, 569 NW 2D 482, 485 (IA 1997)

11

11

12

12

12

STATE V GOFF, 839, 837-39 SUPRA

RIVERA V WOODWARD RES. CTR, 865 NW2D 887 (IA 2015)

STATE V LIGGINS, 557 NW2D 263, 267 (IA1996)

STATE V COUNTYMAN, 572 NW2D 553, 561 (IA 1997).

IN RE WINSHIP, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.C.T 1068, 25 L.ED.2D. (1970)

MCKENZIE V SMITH, 326 F 3D 721, 728 (6TH CIR.CT. 2003)

STATE V MAYS, 204 NW2D 862, 865 IA 1973)

I

11

12A

12A

12A

12C

12C

TABLE OF AUTHORITES CITED

SCHWARTZ V STATE, 506 NW2D 792 (IA.APP. 1993)

13

U.S. V MILLER, 263 F 3D 1 (2ND CIR.CT 2001)

13

MILLER V PATE, 386 U.S. 1, 87 S.CT. 785, 17 L.ED.2D 690 (1967)

13

U.S. V GOODSON, 165 F 3D 610 (8TH CIR.CT. 1999)

13

WILSON V LAWRENCE COUNTY, 260 F 3D 946 (8TH CIR.CT.)

14

STATE V METZGER "CHEATING THE CONST", 59 VAND L REV, 475,491 (2006)

15

MESAREOSH V U.S. 352 U.S. 1, 1 L ED 2D 1, 77 S.CT. 1 (1956)

15

U.S. CONSTITUTION, STATE STAUTES & RULES

U.S. CONST AMEND SIX & FOURTEENTH

(EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL)

13

U.S. CONST. AMEND FIVE (DUE PROCESS)

13

BAD ACTS LAW

7

DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW (HEEMSTRA SUPRA)

11

IOWA CODE 622.1 PENALTY OF PERJURY, (IA)

15

i

OTHERS CITES & REFERENCES

POLICE REPORT # CL050000258 (SCOTT CO. IA)

2

2

POLICE REPORT # 0503691

3

ALL TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF WALKER TRIAL IN CLINTON CO, IA 2006

ALL PGS.

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 17 & 19, # 7 CLINTON CO,IA 2006

5

ALL INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPS

9

EXHIBIT NO. 27

9

IOWA JURY INSTRUCTIONS (GENERAL MURDER) NO. 14 & 32

11

TRIAL INFORMATION REPORT CLINTON CO,IA

N/A

FINAL REPORT OF JURY GUILTY VERDICT

N/A

POLICE REPORT (SCOTT CO) INTERVIEW #CL05001662

II

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[X] For cases from federal courts: HABEAS COURPUS

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix _J_

the petition and is

to

2022 US.Dist.Ct. LEXIS 187905 WL 6829354 (2022)

[Xj reported at ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, ui,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix Z

the petition and is

2203093, US DIST.CT. 4:19-cv-00185rRGE

[ X| reported at ------------------------------------------------------- , or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

[X] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix B

to the petition and is

H reported at 738 NW2d 662 (2007 IA.APP.CT.)

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

POst-Conviction (IA CT. APPeals)

court

The opinion of the

appears at Appendix D

to the petition and is

927 NW2d 687, No. 16-1796 (2-6-19). orj

[x ] reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

to

JURISDICTION

[xjxFor cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was ? ftth P j r-.-C-T_,_______

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[X3f A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: __11__________________, and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[x]xAn extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

2023

(date)

(date) on

to and including______ July

in Application No.__ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

HABEAS CORPUS DEIED AND COA Denied US District & Appeals Courts

£x|xFor cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix —D------

2/6719*

[xi A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

2-6-19

and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix__D

[ ] An extension , of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

(date) in

(date) on

to and including____

Application No.__ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

FURTHER REVIEW TO SUPREME COURT OF IOWA DENIED

2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Iowa Codes;

*702.11

*707.2(2)

*702.11

*707.2(1)

FElony Murder Rules

US Constituional Amend Six & fourteen,

Guarentee of effective Assistance of Counsel

Right of due process of law and statue

Uniform Jury instructions (Iowa)

v# _

• V: i n

■

III

■:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A Scott County Jury convicted Maurice Walker, Sr. of (2) two

counts of First Degree murder finding he shot and killed his former

wife, Renee Walker, and her live-in boyfriend Steven Kersey. The

murders occurred inside Renee WalkerTs apartment. Walker presented

an alibi defense and other evidence tot he facts that he did not

commit this crime.

The State alleged, and the jury.was instructed on, Two (2)

theories of First Degree murder; (1) Premeditated-Intentional murder,

(2) Murder while participating in a forcible felony, namely Burglary.

The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either

theory. The Jury in their guilty verdict failed to reference or list

on what theory they used to find Mr. Walker Guilty.

The State even stated that, "The Jury returned a general verdicts

of guilty which did not specify which theory it relied upon." This

alone created a violation of the US Constitution of denying Walker

proper and complete confirmation of due process of law.

Wlker appealed arguing only that in light of his alibi defense

the guilty verdicts lacked sufficient evidence and were incomplete.

The Iowa Court of Appeals Affirmed. STATE V WALKER, No. 06-1005, 2007

Iowa App. Lexis 863, at Ct.-App. July 25, 2007. The Iowa Supreme Court

Denied further review on September 18, 2007.

■

*

■

Wlker then filed a post-conviction relief action in the District

Court. Delclaring 21 specifications of ineffective assistance of trial

counsel. WALKER V STATE, CLinton County District Court, PCCV 034422.

There was a PCR Trial on the matter which was Dismissed on Sept 19, 2016.

3

The Iowa Court of appeals affirmed the dismissal. WALKER V STATE,

927 NW2d 687 (IA Ct. APP. 2019) Appeal No. 14-1168. Every CLaim was

first presented in the PCR pro se Briefs, which qualifies as a preser­

vation of error. Yet the Iowa Appellate COurt deemed all issues having

no merit ruled on. But yet never rendered a ruling on each of them

as required by Civil and CRiminal law procedures. Almost all the issues

were under the foundational error of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Which is a constituional violation of WAlker's right to effective

Counsel. Wlker and his Appellant Counsel both filed a pro se brief,

as an application for further review the Iowa Suprme Court. The Appli­

cation requested the Court to grant further review, especially on

the grounds that the specfic guilty verdict was not listed on what

theory the jury convicted Wlker on. THis violating his Due Process

rights.

In referencing the pro se briefs and the application for further

review. It was stated that Walkerfs Trial Counsel failed to Object

to the submission of the instruction ofiFirSt-Degree Burglary, for a

Felony murder or just Intention, premediated Murder. Upon conviction

in the State District Court, The Jury rendered a Guilty verdict, absent

the specific theory of their reaching there verdict.. The Iowa

Supreme Court denied further review and the Procedendo was issued

on April 9, 2019. A Habeas Corpus action under 28 U.S.C. 2254 was

timely filed in the US District COurt, Southern District on June 24,

2019.

THe US District Court DEnied and dismissed his HAbeas, and also

denied a issue of a COA. Walker filed for a COA in the Eighth Circuit

US Appeals COurt, Which was denied, hereby has filed this Writ of

Certiorari in this US Supreme Court.

4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The United States Constituional Amendments demand that this

petition should be granted, based upon factual violations of

"Due Process" and Ineffective Assistance of trial counsel.

THe Jury in this case was instructed of several different

-V

theory's of guilt. When they did render a verdict they failed to

specify which theory they reached a guilty verdict on.

One theory the State presented was that the murders happened

in the course of a violent felony

of Burglary in the First Degree.

This falls under the Iowa Statute of the "Felony Murder Rule".

Pursuant to the code

* interpretaion. Which under the Felony murder

rule the State is not required to show premeditation, Mailce and

afothought, unlike the Murder without the Burglary, where the State

is required

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt those elements.

THey failed on both accounts, and furthermore did not specify which

theory was used to convict Walker on.

This Error harmed Walker by the Jury not^stating which theory

he was convicted under, which is required by State and federal Law

and constituions. Which each theory carries a different requirement

of prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This was and is a exstreem

malfunction in the State Criminal Justice Systems. That requies

"Reversal" and remand for a new trial on bascially the same merits

and principles of LAw and Statue based upon case authority, by US

Constituional Due Process. Based upon STATE V HEEMSTRA, 721 NW2d

549 (8-25-2206. Which was not accepted as authority from the US

District Court Judge, R. Goodman. BAsed upon Iowa Codes 702.11,

707.2(2) & 702.11.

5

L

THe fact and truth remains that Trial COunsel was ineffective

for several reasons. The biggest by her not being the COunsel Guaren

teed by the US COnstituion. SHe failed to even investigate or hire

an investigator to research the case and whether the evidence was

factual or just a theory. HEr failures to object to errounious Jury

instractions where no Lesser-Included offense was given.

THe most important issue would be her not having the HAt tested to

find out what other DNA evidence was there besides MAurice and Renee

WAlkers.

Which both had in there posesion before the crime was

ever commited. THe Evidence does not support beyond a reasonable

either theory of Murder.

Besides there was Hair DNA in the SKi-mask and under Renee Walkers

fingernails that was never tested, nor did defense trial counsel ever

make a Motion to do so.

Walker filed a motion of discovery in the

other Court but it was denied. THe evidence in either Felony Murder

or just Murder is NOT there. And does Cause REasonable DOubt in this

case as a whole.

6