THOMAS E. CLARDY v. ZAC POUNDS - Articles

All Content

THOMAS E. CLARDY v. ZAC POUNDS

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jan 27, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Richard D. Douglas, OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Scott D. Gallisdorfer, BASS, BERRY & SIMS, PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Richard D. Douglas, OFFICE OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Scott D. Gallisdorfer, BASS, BERRY & SIMS, PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, Jessica M. Van Dyke, Jason M. Gichner, THE TENNESSEE INNOCENCE PROJECT, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Judge(s): LARSEN, READLER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. In 2005, a group of men shot brothers Kirk and Kent Clouatre, and Kirk’s wife, Melissa, at Kent’s auto-repair shop. Kirk died; Kent and Melissa survived. Kent identified one of the shooters as Thomas Clardy. Clardy was charged with murder, attempted murder, and reckless endangerment. At trial in state court, Kent’s identification of Clardy was the primary evidence connecting Clardy to the shooting. Clardy’s counsel highlighted the problems with that identification, but she did not call an expert on eyewitness identification because she could not find one willing to work for what Clardy could afford or what she understood the state would pay. Clardy was convicted, and the conviction was affirmed. Clardy then filed a petition for post conviction review in state court where he argued, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an eyewitness expert. The state trial court denied that petition and the court of appeals affirmed. The state courts did not decide whether Clardy’s counsel had performed deficiently but concluded that Clardy had suffered no prejudice. Clardy then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The district court granted the writ on the eyewitness-expert claim, concluding that counsel had performed deficiently and that the state court had unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent in concluding that Clardy was not prejudiced. We REVERSE and REMAND because counsel’s performance was not deficient.

Attachments: