Michael Lee LOCKHART
Classification: Serial killer
Characteristics: Rape - Mutilation - Evisceration - To avoid arrest
Number of victims: 6 +
Date of murders: 1987 - 1988
Date of arrest: March 22, 1988
Date of birth: September 30, 1960
Victims profile: 5 young women and 1 man (police officer Paul Hulsey Jr.)
Method of murder: Stabbing with knife - Shooting
Location: Indiana/Texas/Florida/Tennessee, USA
Status: Executed by lethal injection in Texas on December 9, 1997
Lockhart was convicted for the capital murder of police officer Paul Hulsey Jr. in Beaumont, Texas. Hulsey had followed Lockhart driving a stolen corvette to a local hotel, then followed him into his room. As he was making the arrest, Lockhart punched the officer, grabbed a gun and shot him. According to a statement later given by Lockhart, he then shot him a second time and fled. (During trial, Lockhart bolted and jumped through a third story courthouse window. His escape was unsuccessful.)
Lockhart was also implicated in a series of gruesome offenses during the five months preceding the Texas murder, including the sexual assault, murder and mutilation of 16-year-old Wendy Gallagher in Griffith, Indiana on October 13, 1987, and the sexual assault of Lockhart's former wife in Toledo, Ohio on November 7-8, 1987; and the sexual assault, murder and mutilation of 14-year-old Jennifer Colhouer in Land O' Lakes, Florida on January 20, 1988.
Lockhart was convicted of murder and was on death row in Indiana and Florida at the time of his execution in Texas.
Texas Attorney General
Tuesday, December 9, 1997
FACT SHEET ON MICHAEL LEE LOCKHART
Texas Attorney General Dan Morales offers the following information on Michael Lee Lockhart, who is scheduled to be executed after 6 p.m. Tuesday, December 9, 1997:
Michael Lee Lockhart was convicted for the capital murder of police officer Paul Hulsey Jr. in Beaumont, Texas.
Lockhart spent the afternoon of March 22, 1988, visiting with a group of female employees in a clothing store in the Parkdale Mall in Beaumont, Texas. Driving a stolen red Corvette, Lockhart left the mall at approximately 5:15 p.m. and drove to a high-crime area of Beaumont where he encountered a group of young males. Lockhart asked one of the men, Joseph Malone, Jr., where he could purchase some marijuana and cocaine. Malone then accepted a ride in Lockhart's car.
A Beaumont police officer, Paul Hulsey, Jr., saw Lockhart and Malone, became suspicious, and turned to follow them. However, Lockhart sped away. Hulsey chased Lockhart for several minutes, but Lockhart soon lost him. During the chase, Malone asked Lockhart if he had seen the officer, and Lockhart replied, "They're not going to stop me anymore." After he successfully eluded the police, Lockhart let Malone out of the car and sped off.
Hulsey continued to look for the red Corvette and, when he saw Malone walking, he asked him what he knew about the driver of the red Corvette. After talking with Malone, Hulsey stopped by the Sabine Tabernacle Church to talk to off-duty police officer John Larry Thomas at approximately 6:35 p.m. Hulsey told Thomas about the chase and that he intended to check all of the nearby motels for the red Corvette.
At approximately 7 p.m., Hulsey located the red Corvette in the parking lot of the Best Western Hotel. He radioed the information to fellow officer Keith Goudeau, who parked his vehicle in an adjacent parking lot. Goudeau confirmed the sighting of the red Corvette in the parking lot. Both officers also sighted Lockhart walking toward the front desk of the motel. Hulsey contacted the teletype operator for the Beaumont Police Department, Daphne Winger Reneau, and requested that she check to see whether the license plate on Lockhart's car was stolen.
The license plate had been reported as stolen in Tampa, Florida, and she communicated this fact to Hulsey, who requested that she send another unit over. Reneau relayed this request immediately to the dispatch officer, who broadcast the request for assistance. At 7:13 p.m., Hulsey also requested assistance on the main channel used by the police department. Goudeau did not respond to Hulsey's request because he had responded to an auto-pedestrian accident nearby.
Ruben Rodriguez, a guest of the Best Western motel staying in the room next to Lockhart's, heard a commotion shortly after 7 p.m. that began with banging on the walls and progressed to three loud bangs. He estimated that the commotion happened quickly and may have lasted a minute or more before he heard a car leave, screeching its tires.
Another Best Western guest, Jay First, also heard the loud bang followed by two more bangs in quick succession, which he later determined to be gunshots. First looked outside his room and observed a man in faded jeans and a jersey sweatshirt run out of the adjacent room, dropping what appeared to be change, as he drove off in a red Corvette. First went to the room, realized a police officer had been shot, and ran to the front desk of the motel to call for help.
Two off-duty police officers who had responded to Hulsey's request for assistance arrived shortly afterwards and were directed to Hulsey. Hulsey did not have a pulse, and efforts to resuscitate him were unsuccessful. Hulsey had been shot two times. One shot went through Hulsey's forearm, and the other had gone into his chest, piercing both lungs and his heart. Both shots had been fired at a range of more than five feet away from Hulsey. Hulsey had also been struck in the face several times. One wound to his face appeared to have been made with the end of a writing pen.
At approximately 7:40 p.m., John Friend with the Orange County Sheriff's Office encountered the red Corvette driven by Lockhart on U.S. Highway I-10. A chase ensued on the highway and continued through residential areas until Lockhart crashed his car in a traffic circle in Orange, Texas. Lockhart fled on foot and entered an ice cream shop a short time later. Lockhart inquired about a taxi service, but, upon learning there was no taxi service in Orange, offered a young man $50 for a ride back to Beaumont. Lockhart was taken back to Beaumont and let out near a Bennigan's restaurant near highway I-10.
At Bennigan's, Lockhart obtained a taxicab ride and asked to be taken to Houston. Lockhart gave the cab driver a $100 bill. Approximately 50 miles outside of Beaumont, police, who had been following the cab for some distance, sounded their sirens, signaling the cab to pull over. Lockhart commented, "Oh, well, I guess I'm going to jail now."
Lockhart and the cab driver were ordered out of the car and told to place their hands on the roof of the car. Lockhart exited the car and told the officers, "I'm the one you want. I'm the one you're looking for." Lockhart was arrested and taken to a justice of the peace for arraignment in nearby Chambers County. On the way to be arraigned, Lockhart said, "I'm sorry I killed that guy. I killed him because he f____d up."
After being arraigned and while being taken back to Beaumont, Lockhart again commented that Hulsey had "really f____d up," and then elaborated on what had transpired between him and Hulsey: Lockhart saw Hulsey earlier and thought about what to do. He knew Hulsey did not have a backup and that he planned to get his gun and "get the drop on" the officer. Hulsey followed Lockhart into his room, and he must have seen Lockhart's gun, because he ordered Lockhart to put his hands on the wall. Lockhart responded, "Why?" and Hulsey said "you have a gun." Lockhart had continued to argue with Hulsey. Hulsey pulled his gun out, and Lockhart complied with his demand to place his hands on the wall.
However, Lockhart placed his hands on the wall next to a mirror enabling him to see Hulsey's actions. When Hulsey walked up behind Lockhart and lowered his gun to put it in his holster, Lockhart turned and hit Hulsey in the face. A fight ensued, and Hulsey's gun discharged. Lockhart, who had managed to obtain his gun in the struggle, shot Hulsey and then, after a brief time, he shot Hulsey again. Hulsey "begged" Lockhart not to shoot anymore. Lockhart grabbed his keys and money and left the room. As he left, Lockhart "knew" Hulsey was dead.
The State concluded the presentation of its case at the guilt phase by introducing evidence of Lockhart's attempted escape during the jury selection process of his trial. On August 18, 1988, after his trial had been proceeding for about two weeks, Lockhart was taken to the court room after lunch and uncuffed as usual. Lockhart immediately ran toward the window in the third-floor court room and dove through it. Lockhart was captured shortly afterwards and taken to a local hospital to be treated for his injuries.
Lockhart is in custody pursuant to a judgment and sentence of the 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas. Lockhart was indicted in Jefferson County, Texas, for the capital murder of police officer Paul Hulsey, Jr., in Beaumont, Texas. Upon an agreed motion, venue was transferred to Bexar County, Texas. Lockhart was tried before a jury upon a plea of not guilty, and on October 4, 1988, the jury found him guilty of the capital murder.
On October 25, 1988, following a separate punishment hearing, the same jury answered affirmatively the three special issues submitted pursuant to former Article 37.071(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In accordance with Texas law, the trial court sentenced Lockhart to death.
Lockhart directly appealed his conviction and sentence to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the conviction and sentence in an opinion delivered on December 2, 1992. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied Lockhart's motion for rehearing on February 24, 1993. Lockhart then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, which was denied on October 4, 1993.
On July 2, 1993, the trial court scheduled Lockhart's execution for November 23, 1993. Six days prior to his scheduled execution, Lockhart, assisted by the Texas Resource Center, filed a "pro se" request for appointment of counsel and motion for stay of execution. The trial court denied Lockhart's requested stay and severely criticized Lockhart and the Texas Resource Center for "deliberately and intentionally manipulat[ing] access to habeas corpus review as a matter of strategy."
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of a stay on the ground that no colorable claim for habeas relief had been asserted and, therefore, the trial court's jurisdiction to enter a stay had not been invoked.
On November 22, 1993, Lockhart, again with the assistance of the Texas Resource Center, filed a "pro se" motion for appointment of counsel and a request for stay of execution in federal district court. Counsel also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus raising four claims for relief. On the same day, the district court granted a stay of execution, appointed counsel, and ordered that an amended petition be filed no later than March 25, 1994.
Lockhart filed his amended, but still incomplete, petition on May 25, 1994, and then, on June 30, 1994, Lockhart filed his second amended petition. The state filed its answer and motion for summary judgment on September 7, 1994. On July 30, 1996, the district court granted the state's motion for summary judgment and denied all relief requested by Lockhart.
On August 9, 1996, the trial court scheduled Lockhart to be executed on September 10, 1996. Lockhart subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which was denied by the federal district court on August 14, 1996. Along with a notice of appeal, Lockhart also filed an application for certificate of probable cause to appeal and a motion to stay his execution pending appeal, which were both denied on August 28, 1996.
On September 5, 1996, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Lockhart's execution so that it could consider several issues raised by Lockhart's request for authorization to appeal the district court's denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus. On January 9, 1997, the 5th Circuit found that Lockhart had failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and dismissed his appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review on June 27, 1997.
On April 20, 1997, while Lockhart's petition for certiorari review was pending before the Court, a state habeas application was filed in the convicting court by Robert McGlohon, who had been appointed by the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Article. 11.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Following the submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by both parties, the convicting court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law on August 21, 1997.
The Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief on October 29, 1997, determining that "the trial court's findings and conclusions are supported by the record and upon such basis the relief sought by the applicant is denied." By order dated November 3, 1997, the trial court scheduled Lockhart's execution for December 9, 1997.
PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY
At the guilt-innocence phase of trial, the state presented evidence that Lockhart had received probation for a robbery committed in Wyoming, which was subsequently revoked. The state also presented evidence that Lockhart had stolen a red Corvette on November 9, 1987, and that he had committed an armed robbery of a bank in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 21, 1988
During the punishment phase of trial, the state presented evidence of several prior unadjudicated offenses committed by Lockhart. On May 2, 1987, Lockhart was arrested in Locust Grove, Georgia, for burglary of an automobile and being in possession of marijuana; he repeatedly threatened the arresting officer that he would return to kill her.
Lockhart burglarized a home in Elyria, Ohio, on August 4, 1987, acquiring the gun he would later use in subsequent offenses. Lockhart committed an assault and an attempted armed robbery of a woman in Chicago, Illinois, on October 12, 1987.
On November 16, 1987, Lockhart stole the license plates off of an automobile parked in the Lambert Airport in St. Louis, Missouri. The plates were later discovered inside the red Corvette after Lockhart's arrest for the instant offense. On January 12, 1988, Lockhart committed an armed robbery of a Payless Shoe Store in Jacksonville, Florida.
Lockhart was also implicated in a series of gruesome offenses with similar characteristics committed during the five months preceding the instant offense: the murder of 16-year-old Wendy Gallagher in Griffith, Indiana, on October 13, 1987; the sexual assault of Lockhart's former wife in Toledo, Ohio, on November 7-8, 1987; and the sexual assault and murder of 14-year-old Jennifer Colhouer in Land O' Lakes, Florida, on January 20, 1988.
(Gallagher was found partially nude and disemboweled, her hands bound behind her back with strips of cloth. Lockhart's former wife testified that he bound and gagged her with strips of cloth then sexually assaulted her over a two-day period. Colhouer had also been sexually assaulted, and, in addition to showing signs of strangulation on her neck, she had been disemboweled similar to the manner in which Gallagher had been mutilated.)
Clark County Prosecuting Attorney
Indiana - Lake County Superior Court, Judge James E. Letsinger
Date of Murder: October 13, 1987
Victim(s): Windy Gallagher W/F/16 (No relationship to Lockhart)
Method of Murder: stabbing with large knife 21 times
Summary: The body of 16 year old Windy Gallagher was found by her sister in the bedroom of their home in Griffith, Indiana. She was nude from the waist down with her hands tied behind her back, and her bra pushed up above her breasts. She was stabbed with a large knife 4 times in the neck and 17 times in the abdomen. There was a large pool of blood and her intestines were hanging out. Missing from her room was a photo of Windy and a small purse. Fingerprints in the room were identified as Lockhart's.
The day before in Chicago, a woman was robbed of her purse at knifepoint. She identified Lockhart as her attacker. She was fortunate to recover her purse 3 days later. Inside it, she found the small purse belonging to Windy Gallagher. In January 1988, a 14 year old girl was raped and stabbed to death in Florida. Lockhart was identified by witnesses and DNA as the murderer. Because of striking similarities, evidence of this crime was admitted at trial. Lockhart's crime spree ended in Texas, where he murdered a police officer in Beaumont. He was convicted of Capital Murder in October 1988. This crime and conviction was kept from the jury until the penalty phase of the trial.
Sentencing: July 19, 1989 (Death Sentence)
"Executioner, the one who hides behind the door of darkness, I am ready. Go ahead and push down the plunger of poison to murder me in the name of justice. I forgive you, I love you," he wrote from his cramped cell on death row.
Lockhart was convicted of murdering police officer Paul Hulsey Jr., in Beaumont, about 85 miles east of Houston. The police officer was shot through the heart after tracking the drifter to a local motel and trying to arrest him for driving a stolen red Corvette.
In the 5 months before the shooting, Lockhart murdered 16-year-old Wendy Gallagher in Griffith, Ind., and sexually assaulted and killed 14-year old Jennifer Colhouer in Land O' Lakes, Fla. Both girls were found disemboweled, their hands tied behind their backs with strips of cloth. Lockhart, who was convicted and sentenced to die in Indiana and Florida for those murders, boasted at one time of having killed more than 2 dozen people. But he later said he was responsible only for the 3 murders.
He spent his final day on death row with several hometown friends from Toledo, Ohio, who later witnessed the execution. He died in prison-issue white slacks and shirt and his favorite tennis shoes. The execution at the Huntsville state prison about 70 miles north of Houston also was witnessed by Hulsey's father and brother, Gallagher's mother and Colhouer's father and stepfather, a prison spokesman said. "I hope that my death will bring you some comfort," Lockhart said to the victims' families as he lay strapped to a gurney in the prison death chamber. He was pronounced dead at 6:24 p.m. local time.
Final Statement of Michael Lee Lockhart
A lot of people view what is happening here as evil, but I want you to know that I found love and compassion here. The people who work here, I thank them for the kindness they have shown me and I deeply appreciate all that has been done for me by the people who work here. That’s all, Warden, I’m ready.
Death Penalty News USA
A drifter convicted of murders in 3 states was executed by lethal injection in Texas Tuesday in the state's record 37th and final execution this year. Michael Lee Lockhart, a 37-year-old serial criminal sentenced to die in Texas for the 1988 murder of a Beaumont policeman, in a 2-page typed statement forgave an anonymous prison official who carried out his death sentence. "Executioner, the one who hides behind the door of darkness, I am ready. Go ahead and push down the plunger of poison to murder me in the name of justice. I forgive you, I love you," he wrote from his cramped cell on death row.
The execution in Texas, and executions scheduled for Tuesday and Thursday in Virginia, drew protests from human rights group Amnesty International USA against the rising number of death sentences being carried out by the two states. "(Virginia) is in this kind of race to the guillotine with Texas. Is it just coincidental that (Texas) Gov. (George) Bush and (Virginia) Gov. (George) Allen are presidential hopefuls," said Sam Jordan, director of Amnesty International's campaign against the death penalty.
Lockhart was convicted of murdering police officer Paul Hulsey Jr., in Beaumont, about 85 miles east of Houston. The police officer was shot through the heart after tracking the drifter to a local motel and trying to arrest him for driving a stolen red Corvette. In the 5 months before the shooting, Lockhart murdered 16-year-old Wendy Gallagher in Griffith, Ind., and sexually assaulted and killed 14-year old Jennifer Colhouer in Land O' Lakes, Fla.
Both girls were found disemboweled, their hands tied behind their backs with strips of cloth. Lockhart, who was convicted and sentenced to die in Indiana and Florida for those murders, boasted at one time of having killed more than 2 dozen people. But he later said he was responsible only for the 3 murders.
He spent his final day on death row with several hometown friends from Toledo, Ohio, who later witnessed the execution. He died in prison-issue white slacks and shirt and his favorite tennis shoes.
The execution at the Huntsville state prison about 70 miles north of Houston also was witnessed by Hulsey's father and brother, Gallagher's mother and Colhouer's father and stepfather, a prison spokesman said. "I hope that my death will bring you some comfort," Lockhart said to the victims' families as he lay strapped to a gurney in the prison death chamber. He was pronounced dead at 6:24 p.m. local time.
Texas shattered its previous record of 19 executions in a year after a state appeals court upheld a new law limiting death row appeals. That decision cleared the way for 2 dozen condemned men to meet their fate. The pace of executions this year sparked few protests in Texas, where politicians routinely run for statewide office on a promise to support capital punishment. But a prison spokesman said he was "physically exhausted" meeting demands for information from the international media.
Lockhart becomes the 37th condemned inmate to be executed in Texas this year and the 144th overall since the state resumed capital punishment on Dec. 7, 1982. He was also the 72nd condemned inmate to be executed this year in the USA, and the 430th overall since America resumed capital punishment on Jan. 17, 1977.
Monday, Dec. 8, 1997
As he prepares for his execution Tuesday, multiple killer Michael Lee Lockhart said he is at peace with himself and not afraid to die. Lockhart, 37, once claimed to have killed as many as 29 people, but has maintained in the last years that he killed 3.
Lockhart was convicted of the March 22, 1988, shooting death of Beaumont, Texas, police officer Paul Hulsey Jr. He also raped and stabbed a 16-year -old girl from Indiana and a 14-year-old girl from Florida. Lockhart is scheduled to die by lethal injection Tuesday. His attorneys say they are not optimistic for a stay of execution. "Michael most likely will be dead Tuesday night," said attorney Juliet Yackel of Chicago.
Lockhart said he has become religious since living on death row for 3 years in a Huntsville, Texas, prison and now feels remorse for the killings. "I will not sit here and blame my terrible childhood for taking those lives. I'm still accountable for my actions. I blame nobody but myself."
Lockhart said he has been reading psychology books, trying to "figure out how I ended up here." He has traced his problems back to age 6 when he was molested by 2 people over a 2-year period. "I'm just saying that at the age of 6, I was programmed with the wrong things about life. If I would have had help, I wouldn't be here now," he said.
Lockhart did get help in August 1984 when he considered killing himself. He was depressed because he was abusing drugs and alcohol and was involved in a troubled marriage. He turned up at a Toledo, Ohio, suicide prevention center and was sent to the psychiatric unit at St. Charles Hospital.
On his admission form, Lockhart responded to the question "What worries you most?" with "Hurting someone else." At the urging of his family, Lockhart left the hospital Aug. 18 and never returned.
On Oct. 11, 1984, he dropped his wife, Janet, off at work, quit his job as a truck driver, borrowed his parents' car and headed west. He then went on a steady downhill slide, spending the next several years in and out of jails and substance abuse programs.
On Oct. 13, 1987, Lockhart woke up depressed in an Indiana motel. "My first thought was this is a perfect day to die," he said with little emotion. "I was suicidal. And if I was going to die, then I was going to kill somebody, too." Later that day, Lockhart attacked Windy Gallagher in her apartment. He stabbed her 21 times and then disemboweled her. In January, Lockhart killed Jennifer Colhouer in similar fashion.
2 months later he was caught, shortly after shooting Hulsey who had questioned Lockhart about the Corvette he was driving. The car had been reported stolen. "I was in a rage," Lockhart said. He said his arrest several hours later was a relief.
Lockhart said he is convinced that had he continued his treatment in St. Charles Hospital he would not have killed anyone. But he refuses to use his psychological problems as an excuse. Ms. Gallager's mother said she plans to be at Lockhart's execution. "My daughter lived through a violent death," April Gallagher said. "Thank God we got him. He can't do it again. He'll have to meet his maker with bloodstained hands."
Abilene Reporter-News Online
LETTER TO EDITOR - Insensitive crowd
It is understandable that the more than 50 Beaumont police officers who gathered in Huntsville last week for the execution of Michael Lockhart would feel satisfied that his sentence for killing one of their own was carried out. It is disgusting, however, that they could feel enough joy about this man's death that they "erupted in cheers and whistles."
Lockhart was a murderer, yet he died with compassion for his victim's family. Even if he had not had compassion, he was a human being, whose death should be mourned, in a sense, by all other human beings. Only a sick mind would find happiness in the death of a fellow man.
Michael Lockhart had a family and friends who knew him long before he became a killer. They suffered a loss, too. First, when he committed the crime that put him where he is today, and finally, last Tuesday when he was put to death. That this crowd of police officers could be so insensitive to them is very disturbing.
Inmate With Death Sentences in Three States Put to Death
By Michael Graczyk - Abilene Reporter-News Online
Wednesday, December 10, 1997
HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) -- Michael Lee Lockhart, an Ohio man who had said for years that he wanted to die, was put to death by prison officials Tuesday night for killing a Beaumont police officer almost 10 years ago. Just before the lethal drugs were administered, Lockhart looked through a window to five family members of his murder victims and asked for their forgiveness. "I am deeply sorry. It is my hope my death will give you some kind of comfort," he said.
Then, he expressed love and thanks to his friends and family and also thanked prison officials whom he said had treated him kindly. "I am really at peace," he said before closing his eyes. As the drugs took effect, he gasped about three times, then lost consciousness. Seven minutes later, at 6:24 p.m., he was pronounced dead.
As witnesses emerged from the prison, a crowd of some 100 Beaumont police officers standing down the street erupted in cheers, applause and whistles. Lockhart, 37, became the 37th man to die by lethal injection in the state's death chamber in 1997, adding to the state's record year for executions. He had been been under death penalties in Texas, Indiana and Florida has said for years he wanted to die. The execution came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court denied 11th-hour requests for a reprieve.
The drifter from Toledo, Ohio, once claimed to have killed more than two dozen people around the country. He acknowledged three murders during a five-month spree that began in mid-October 1987 with the torture and mutilation of a 16-year-old girl, Windy Gallagher, at her home in Griffith, Ind. Three months later, his next victim was Jennifer Colhouer, 14, of Land O'Lakes, Fla. In both cases, the girls were raped and savagely stabbed, their mutilated bodies discovered in their homes by a family member.
Supporting himself with robberies and traveling the country in fancy stolen sports cars, Lockhart on March 22, 1988, gunned down Paul Hulsey Jr. The Beaumont police officer had spotted Lockhart speeding through the southeast Texas city in a stolen red Corvette, then tracked him to a motel where he was spending the night. Hulsey was trying to arrest Lockhart when he was shot three times with a .357-caliber Magnum pistol. He became the first Beaumont officer to die in the line of duty in 68 years.
"I don't feel one ounce of revenge," Hulsey's father, Paul Sr., said after watching the execution. "I feel relief. But it will never bring back our son." "I don't have to worry about him getting out," said April Gallagher, whose daughter was killed by Lockhart, and who came from Indiana to see Lockhart die. "Seeing this is to know Michael Lockhart will never be able to do that again." "There's some relief," Thomas Colhouer, who also lost a daughter to Lockhart, said after emerging from the death chamber. "We can go ahead and put back our lives but it will never be the same. For 10 years my family has suffered."
A Texas jury found Lockhart guilty of capital murder and gave him the first death sentence. An Indiana jury followed with its decision several months later and Lockhart pleaded guilty in the Florida case. Since the Texas conviction came first, Texas had priority in executing him. "I am guilty for those three cases and take full responsibility for those cases," Lockhart said last week. "I wish I could give my life in place of theirs. I have been praying for this since 1988. "I don't think I could have stopped (killing). I was fortunate to get caught."
A psychologist who testified at Lockhart's 1988 Texas trial, which was moved from Beaumont to San Antonio because of publicity, said Lockhart was haunted by homosexual impulses, that he had been molested by a family friend and neighbor at the age of 5 or 6 and also was the victim of incest from the time he was 9 until he was 12. The experiences, the psychologist said, caused him to become violent with younger women and enraged with men if he was cornered, like when Hulsey tried to arrest him.
A similar situation occurred at his Texas trial. Ten days after jury selection began, Lockhart bolted from deputies during a lunch break and jumped through a third-floor courthouse window. He didn't get far, suffering a broken bone in the fall.
Police Officer's Killer to be Executed Today
By Michael Graczyk - Houston Chronicle
HUNTSVILLE (AP) - Michael Lee Lockhart has been compared to serial killer Ted Bundy, a comparison Lockhart denies. What they likely will share is a common fate, their lives ended by execution. Lockhart, 37, who at one time claimed to have murdered more than two dozen people, now acknowledges three murders -- in Texas, Indiana and Florida -- and has death sentences to show for them in each of those states.
Today the drifter from Toledo, Ohio, is set for lethal injection in Texas for killing a police officer, Paul Hulsey Jr., while Hulsey was on patrol March 22, 1988, in Beaumont. "The man was doing his job," Lockhart said last week. "And I'm responsible for his murder."
He's also responsible for the murder of Windy Gallagher, 16, of Griffith, Ind., tortured and fatally stabbed at her home in 1987. Eight months after his Texas conviction, a jury in Indiana sentenced him to death. A judge in Dade City, Fla., gave Lockhart his third death sentence in December 1989 after he pleaded guilty to a similar mutilation slaying of 14-year-old Jennifer Colhouer of Land O'Lakes, Fla.
The victim was killed at her home in January 1988. The self-described smooth-talking con man was once a door-to-door salesman and had a knack for getting unsuspecting young girls to allow him into their homes.
Gallagher was found raped and stabbed in her bedroom Oct. 13, 1987. The victim's younger sister discovered her disemboweled body tied to a bed, hands tied behind her. Colhouer was found by her father in an upstairs bedroom Jan. 10, 1988. She had been abducted after getting off of a school bus and was raped and fatally stabbed.
"I am guilty for those three cases and take full responsibility for those cases," Lockhart said. "I wish I could give my life in place of theirs. I have been praying for this since 1988."
That's when Lockhart, heading for California, raced into Beaumont on the way from Louisiana, driving a red Corvette stolen from a car salesman. Hulsey, son of a Texas police chief, spotted the streaking car and gave chase, lost it, then tracked it to a motel. When Hulsey confronted Lockhart, he was fatally shot with a .357-caliber Magnum pistol.
His slaying was the first of a Beaumont officer in the line of duty in 68 years. "I wasn't going out looking to kill no Beaumont policeman," Lockhart said. "He was just checking me out. The car had Florida tags. I was in a drug neighborhood." "I should have stuck to robbery." Traveling the country, he'd support himself by robbing banks, pulling 20 to 25 heists by his own estimate. He got around by stealing cars, mostly expensive sports cars like Corvettes and Porsches.
LOCKHART, MICHAEL LEE # 62
EXECUTED 12-09-97 6:24 PM BY STATE OF TEXAS
DOC#: 892136 White Male
Lake County Superior Court
Judge James E. Letsinger
Prosecutor: Thomas W. Vanes
Defense: Robert L. Lewis, Willie Harris, Darnail Lyles
Date of Murder: October 13, 1987
Victim(s): Windy Gallagher W/F/16 (No relationship to Lockhart)
Method of Murder: stabbing with large knife 21 times
Summary: The body of 16 year old Windy Gallagher was found by her sister in the bedroom of their home in Griffith, Indiana.
She was nude from the waist down with her hands tied behind her back, and her bra pushed up above her breasts. She was stabbed with a large knife 4 times in the neck and 17 times in the abdomen. There was a large pool of blood and her intestines were hanging out.
Missing from her room was a photo of Windy and a small purse. Fingerprints in the room were identified as Lockhart's.
The day before in Chicago, a woman was robbed of her purse at knifepoint. She identified Lockhart as her attacker. She was fortunate to recover her purse 3 days later. Inside it, she found the small purse belonging to Windy Gallagher.
In January 1988, a 14 year old girl was raped and stabbed to death in Florida. Lockhart was identified by witnesses and DNA as the murderer. Because of striking similarities, evidence of this crime was admitted at trial.
Lockhart's crime spree ended in Texas, where he murdered a police officer in Beaumont. He was convicted of Capital Murder in October 1988. This crime and conviction was kept from the jury until the penalty phase of the trial.
Sentencing: July 19, 1989 (Death Sentence)
Aggravating Circumstances: b (1) Robbery; b(7) convicted of another murder in Texas
Mitigating Circumstances: None
LOCKHART WAS EXECUTED BY LETHAL INJECTION ON 12-09-97 6:24 PM BY STATE OF TEXAS.
Lockhart, Michael Lee
A drifter who has left his tracks from coast to coast, Mike Lockhart was paroled from a Wyoming prison in December 1986.
Authorities suggest that over fifteen months, from Christmas 1986 through March of 1988, he was responsible for crimes including grand theft, robbery and rape, selecting victims from Wyoming to the Florida panhandle, with intermediate stops in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Texas, and Louisiana.
If detectives are correct, he also claimed at least four lives along the way. By June 1988, Lockhart was back in jail, charged with raping his wife in Toledo, Ohio, and stealing a salesman's new car.
Police "know for a fact" that Lockhart assaulted a Chicago woman on October 12, 1987, forcing her into an alley where he stole her purse and slashed her skirt with a knife. The killings charged against him started one day later, fifty miles away.
On October 13, Wendy Gallagher was murdered in Griffith, Indiana, southeast of Chicago, stabbed 21 times by her killer. Three months later, on January 20, 1988, a 14-year-old girl was knifed to death in Land O'Lakes, Florida. Both victims were attacked in their homes, choked unconscious and raped before their assailant wielded his knife in a maniacal frenzy.
On March 22, Lockhart surfaced in Beaumont, Texas, where he killed a police officer and was subsequently arrested, held in lieu of $1 million bond.
He was connected with the Indiana case when homicide detectives started sharing information, and his fingerprints were matched to suspect prints from Wendy Gallagher's apartment.
Charged with Wendy's homicide June 17, the drifter faces further accusations in the murder of a co-ed at Vincennes University, in Indiana. At this writing, police in several other states are scrutinizing unsolved murders and assaults, in search of Lockhart's grisly "signature."
Michael Newton - An Encyclopedia of Modern Serial Killers - Hunting Humans
104 F.3d 54
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 1997
MICHAEL LEE LOCKHART, Petitioner-Appellant,
GARY JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
January 9, 1997
Before DAVIS, JONES and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
Michael Lee Lockhart, a Texas death row inmate, seeks a certificate of probable cause (CPC) or a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition. Because Lockhart has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we deny the COA.
Lockhart was indicted in Jefferson County, Texas, for the capital murder of Police Officer Paul Hulsey, Jr., in Beaumont, Texas. Upon an agreed motion, venue was transferred to Bexar County, Texas. Lockhart was tried before a jury upon a plea of not guilty, and in October 1988, the jury found him guilty of capital murder. Following a separate punishment hearing, the same jury answered affirmatively the three special issues submitted pursuant to former Article 37.071(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court then sentenced Lockhart to death.
Lockhart directly appealed his conviction and sentence to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the conviction and sentence in December 1992. Lockhart v. State, No. 70734 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 2, 1992).(1) Lockhart then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, which was denied in October 1993. Lockhart v. Texas, 114 S.Ct. 146 (1993).
In July 1993, the trial court scheduled Lockhart's execution for November 23, 1993. Six days before his scheduled execution, Lockhart filed in the trial court a pro se request for appointment of counsel and motion for stay of execution. The trial court denied Lockhart's requested stay. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of a stay on the ground that no colorable claim for habeas relief had been asserted and, therefore, the trial court's jurisdiction to enter a stay had not been invoked. Ex parte Lockhart, 868 S.W.2d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
In November 1993, Lockhart filed a pro se motion for appointment of counsel and a request for stay of execution in the U.S. District Court. The district court granted a stay of execution and appointed counsel. Counsel then filed a habeas petition. The Director filed his answer and motion for summary judgment and petitioner responded to the Director's motion. In July 1996, the district court granted the Director's motion for summary judgment and denied habeas relief.
In August 1996, the trial court scheduled Lockhart's execution for September 10, 1996. Lockhart then filed a notice of appeal, along with an application for certificate of probable cause to appeal and a motion to stay his execution pending appeal. We stayed Lockhart's execution pending this appeal.
On March 22, 1988, Beaumont Police Officer Paul Hulsey, Jr. saw appellant driving a red Corvette with a Florida license plate in Beaumont, Texas. Officer Hulsey saw that appellant's passenger was a local drug dealer. When appellant saw the officer, he sped away. Officer Hulsey gave chase, but was unable to catch him. Later that evening, Officer Hulsey spotted appellant's red Corvette in a motel parking lot and learned that he was in the motel. Officer Hulsey went to appellant's motel room to arrest him, and Lockhart shot Officer Hulsey.
According to Lockhart's statement to police, when Officer Hulsey entered Lockhart's room, Lockhart knew Hulsey did not have a backup and he planned to get his gun and "get the drop on" the officer. Hulsey apparently saw Lockhart's gun, because Hulsey ordered Lockhart to put his hands on the wall. Lockhart responded, "Why?" and Hulsey said "you have a gun." Lockhart continued to argue with Hulsey. Hulsey then unholstered his gun and Lockhart complied with his demand to place his hands on the wall.
However, Lockhart placed his hands on the wall next to a mirror enabling him to see Hulsey's actions. When Hulsey walked up behind Lockhart and lowered his gun to put it in his holster,(2) Lockhart turned and hit Hulsey in the face. A fight ensued, and Hulsey's gun discharged. Lockhart, who had managed to obtain his gun in the struggle, shot Hulsey and then, after a brief time, he shot Hulsey again. Hulsey "begged" Lockhart not to shoot anymore. Lockhart grabbed his keys and money and left the room.
On August 18, 1988, after his trial had been proceeding for about two weeks, Lockhart was taken to the courtroom after lunch and was uncuffed as usual. Lockhart bolted for the window in the third-floor courtroom and dove through it. Lockhart was captured shortly afterwards and taken to a local hospital to be treated for his injuries.
Lockhart raised fifteen claims in the district court but he only raises challenges in this court to the district court's rejection of three of his claims. Two of the claims the petitioner presents to us were expressly rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on direct appeal. That court found no merit to Lockhart's argument that he was denied a fair trial when the trial court impermissibly had him shackled and handcuffed during the trial. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals also denied relief to Lockhart on his claim that the trial court erred in granting Lockhart's request to leave the courtroom during a portion of the voir dire examination.
Lockhart presents a third claim to this court that has never been presented to the state court, and the Director has waived the exhaustion requirement. This claim is predicated on the fact that Lockhart's counsel--or his law firm--was actively representing the trial judge in an unrelated civil action. Lockhart argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to either provide him with conflict-free representation, move for the recusal of the trial judge, advise Lockhart of the ongoing nature of counsel's representation of the trial judge, or offer to withdraw from petitioner's representation. We consider below our standard of review for Lockhart's claims and apply that standard to those claims.
This court in Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751 (5th Cir.1996), concluded that §§ 102 and 104 of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) applied to pending habeas cases. See also Moore v. Johnson, 101 F.3d 1069, 1072-73 (5th Cir.1996) (explaining retroactive effect of AEDPA). Section 104(3) (to be codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)) provides:
(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim--
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
Interpreting that section in Drinkard, we concluded that subsection (d)(2) of § 2254 applied to a state court's factual determinations. We concluded that this subsection "permits federal court relief if the state court adjudication of the claim 'resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence.' " Drinkard, 97 F.3d at 767 (quoting § 2254(d)). We held that subsection (d)(1) governed our review of questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact. The first clause of this subsection permits a federal court to grant habeas relief for legal error only if it determines that a state court's decision rested on a legal determination that was "contrary to ... clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court." Id. at 768. When reviewing a mixed question of law and fact, "a federal court may grant habeas relief only if it determines that the state court decision rested on 'an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court' to the facts of the case." Id.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected, on the merits, Lockhart's arguments that the trial court erred in allowing Lockhart to be handcuffed and shackled in the presence of the jury and in allowing Lockhart to leave the courtroom during part of the voir dire.
With respect to Lockhart's first claim, restraining a disruptive defendant does not offend any clearly established Supreme Court precedent. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has expressly held that the use of such visible restraints is appropriate under certain circumstances. See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343-44, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1060-61, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970). The decision to restrain an obstreperous defendant with visible restraints lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Id.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reasonably concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in visibly restraining Lockhart. Lockhart had previously attempted a daring escape from the courthouse by bolting and diving through a closed third story window. Also, the trial court heard testimony that Lockhart had threatened to cause trouble for the deputies who escorted him to and from court.
Additionally, Lockhart reacted to a ruling during a pretrial hearing by standing up and yelling obscenities and resisting the efforts of officers to control him and remove him from the courtroom. Thus, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' resolution of this claim does not offend any clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Neither does its application of the law to the facts of this case represent an unreasonable application of that law. Lockhart has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to this claim.
We now turn to Lockhart's claim that the trial court impermissibly conducted voir dire outside his presence. The trial court permitted Lockhart to leave the courtroom only after an insistent request by Lockhart to do so. The state court found that Lockhart was physically capable of remaining in the courtroom but voluntarily waived his right to be present.
Lockhart points to no clearly established Supreme Court precedent that prohibits criminal defendants from voluntarily waiving their presence during the jury selection process. Assuming that Supreme Court precedent exists which requires the state to permit a defendant who wishes to do so to be present during jury selection, here the defendant voluntarily left the courtroom knowing that he had the right to remain. The state court's rejection of Lockhart's claim under these circumstances is not an unreasonable application of the law to the facts. We are also persuaded that Lockhart has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to this claim.
Lockhart asserts finally that his counsel provided ineffective assistance because he had a conflict of interest in representing Lockhart when his counsel's law firm also represented the trial judge in an unrelated civil action. As stated above, this claim was not presented to the state court, and the Director has waived the exhaustion requirement. Consequently, the AEDPA's provision altering our standard of review, when the petitioner's claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court, has no application to this claim. The district court rejected this claim as a matter of law. We review the district court's legal conclusions de novo.
Lockhart argues that his counsel's conflict of interest resulted in him receiving ineffective assistance of counsel in a number of respects. He argues that counsel failed to provide him with conflict-free representation, to seek the disqualification of the trial judge, to advise him of the nature of defense counsel's representation of the trial judge, or to withdraw from his representation. Lockhart argues that his trial counsel's failure to provide conflict-free representation created a per se conflict of interest under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980).
As the district court observed, we have not read Cuyler this broadly. In Beets v. Scott, 65 F.3d 1258 (5th Cir.1995) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1547, 134 L.Ed.2d 650 (1996), our en banc court determined that Cuyler is primarily reserved for the circumstance where counsel represents multiple clients with conflicting interests. We concluded that a petitioner asserting ineffective assistance of counsel claims predicated on some other conflict of interest must ordinarily satisfy both prongs of the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
As in Beets, if we assume arguendo that petitioner's trial counsel breached some duty to Lockhart by continuing to represent him while counsel's firm was representing the trial judge in an unrelated civil matter, that breach does not establish a per se violation of petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance. To warrant federal habeas relief under Strickland, petitioner must demonstrate error by counsel that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this error prejudiced his case. To establish the prejudice prong of Strickland, petitioner must show a reasonable probability that counsel's error changed the result of the trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 2068.
We agree with the district court that Lockhart demonstrated no basis for a finding of prejudice. Petitioner does not specify any decision by defense counsel which was affected by his firm's representation of the trial judge on an unrelated matter. He also fails to cite any legal authorities on which counsel could have based a motion to disqualify the trial judge. In sum, petitioner fails to allege any steps his counsel took or failed to take as a result of this relationship that affected his defense. Because petitioner failed to allege facts from which a factfinder could infer that he was prejudiced from the relationship between the trial judge and his counsel's law firm, the district court correctly rejected Lockhart's ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that Lockhart has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. We therefore deny the certificate of appealability and vacate the stay of execution we entered earlier.
A portion of the opinion was published. Lockhart v. State, 847 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992)
As Lockhart was telling this, he reiterated that this was how Hulsey "really fucked up."