Linwood Earl Briley

Names and identifiers

• Linwood Earl Briley (capital murder defendant; executed)

Legal outcome

Briley was executed by electrocution in Virginia on October 12, 1984.

Timeline

• 1971 — Linwood Briley, then 16, fatally shot Orline Christian, an elderly next door neighbor, with a rifle from his bedroom window.
• 1973 — Judy Barton was five months pregnant at the time of the later October 19, 1979 killing; the later account states that J.B. was out on parole for a 1973 robbery and malicious wounding conviction.
• 1978–1979 — Briley gang rampage victim count and duration were described as involving eleven victims and lasting nine months in 1978–1979.
• 1979 — Three Briley brothers and Duncan Meekins began an eight month spree of random killings that terrified the city and surrounding region.
• March 12 (1979) — Linwood Briley knocked on the door of Henrico County couple William and Virginia Bucher claiming car trouble and needing to use their phone; he was allowed into the home, pulled a gun on the couple, and waved his brother Anthony inside; the two Brileys tied up the couple and looted the house, dousing each room with gasoline after picking it clean of valuables; a lit match was tossed on the fuel; stolen loot included a television, CB radio, and jewelry.
• March 21 (1979) — Michael McDuffie was murdered at his suburban home.
• April 9 (1979) — The gang followed Mary Gowen across town from her babysitting job, then raped, robbed, and shot her to death outside her home.
• July 4 (1979) — Seventeen year old Christopher Philips was surrounded by the gang, dragged into a nearby backyard, pinned to the ground, and Linwood dropped a cinderblock on Philips’s skull.
• September 14 (1979) — Disc jockey John “Johnny G.” Gallaher was jumped by Linwood, manhandled into the trunk of his own Lincoln Continental, driven to Mayo Island where he was shot dead at point blank range; his body was dumped into the river and remains were found two days later; Linwood was later still wearing a ring stolen from Gallaher’s hand when arrested months later.
• September 30 (1979) — Sixty-two year old private nurse Mary Wilfong was followed home to her Richmond apartment; the gang surrounded her just outside the door; Linwood crushed her skull with a baseball bat; they entered the apartment and looted valuables.
• October 5 (1979) — Blanche Page and Charles Garner were murdered near the Briley home on 4th Avenue in Richmond; Page was bludgeoned to death; Garner was fatally assaulted with a variety of weapons including a baseball bat, five knives, a pair of scissors, and a fork; the scissors and fork were left embedded in Garner’s back.
• October 19 (1979) — J.B. led the gang on the prowl for another victim at night; Harvey Wilkerson had closed and locked his door; the gang knocked and were allowed inside; both adults were overpowered, bound and gagged with duct tape; Linwood manhandled Judy Barton into the kitchen where she was raped; Duncan Meekins continued the sexual assault; Linwood dragged Barton back into the living room, briefly rummaged for valuables, and left; the remaining gang members covered victims with sheets; J.B. told Meekins “you’ve got to get one”; Meekins took a pistol and fatally shot adult Harvey Wilkerson in the head; J.B. then shot Barton and the five year old boy to death; bodies were not discovered until three days following the crime.
• May 31, 1984 — Linwood and J.B. were ringleaders in a six inmate escape from death row at Mecklenburg Correctional Center.
• June 19 — Briley was captured by a heavily armed group of FBI agents and police.
• October 12, 1984 — Linwood Briley was executed in Virginia’s electric chair.
• October 9, 1984 — United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirmed dismissal of Briley’s second petition for habeas corpus relief; the Fourth Circuit also denied a stay of execution filed September 27, 1984.
• September 27, 1984 — Briley filed a motion for a stay of execution, which was denied.
• September 24, 1984 — Linwood E. Briley filed his second petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254.
• May 1983 — The district court had previously rejected a petition for habeas corpus filed in May, 1983.
• September 1983 — The district court had previously rejected a petition for habeas corpus as amended in September, 1983.

Background

Briley was described as part of the “Briley Brothers” gang spree linked with James “J.B.” Briley and Anthony Briley. The three boys were described as collecting deadly pets such as tarantulas, piranhas, Dobermans, and boa constrictors, and as feeding live mice to their boa constrictor. Their father James Sr. was described as padlocking his bedroom door from the inside overnight due to concern about the behavior.

The offence

First killing in 1971

In 1971, while alone at home, Linwood took aim with a rifle from his bedroom window and fatally shot Orline Christian, an elderly next door neighbor, as she passed by her window sill. Her grieving relatives noticed a small bloody mark on her back at the viewing and asked the funeral director to reexamine the body. Upon second examination, a small caliber bullet wound in her back was found. Police investigators were contacted to determine the source of the gunshot. A detective used a sheet of plywood to represent the body with a hole cut out to represent the bullet wound and determined that the bullet could have only come from the Briley home next door. The murder weapon was found there, and Linwood admitted to the crime with indifference:

"I heard she had heart problems, she would have died soon anyway."

Linwood was sent to reform school to serve a one-year sentence for the killing.

1979 spree: random killings, rape, robbery, and murder

March 12: the Buchers

Linwood knocked on the door of Henrico County couple William and Virginia Bucher, claiming car trouble and needing to use their phone. Linwood was allowed into the home, pulled a gun on the couple, and waved his brother Anthony inside. The two Brileys tied up the couple and looted the house, dousing each room with gasoline after picking it clean of valuables. As they left, a lit match was tossed on the fuel. The stolen loot was described as including a television, CB radio, and jewelry; it was packed into their trunk and they sped off. The account stated that Mr. Bucher managed to free himself and his wife and escape just before the house became engulfed in flames, and that they were the only survivors.

March 21: Michael McDuffie

Michael McDuffie, described as a vending machine serviceman, was murdered by gang members at his suburban home on March 21 with use of force. The gang shot him dead and then stole valuables.

April 9: Mary Gowen

On April 9, the gang followed Mary Gowen, described as seventy-six years old, across town from her babysitting job, then raped, robbed, and shot her to death outside her home.

July 4: Christopher Philips

On July 4, seventeen year old Christopher Philips was spotted hanging around Linwood Briley’s parked car by gang members. The gang surrounded him and dragged him into a nearby backyard, suspecting he might have been trying to break into the vehicle. Philips was pinned to the ground by three members; when Philips screamed for help, he was silenced forever as Linwood dropped a cinderblock on his skull, crushing it.

September 14: John “Johnny G.” Gallaher

On September 14, John “Johnny G.” Gallaher, described as a disc jockey, was performing with his band at a South Richmond nightclub. After stepping out between sets for a break, Gallaher came into the hands of the Briley gang, who had been looking for a victim all night without success. The gang decided to lie-in-wait for whoever might happen to step outside. Linwood jumped Gallaher, manhandled him into the trunk of his own Lincoln Continental, and drove him to Mayo Island in the middle of the James River, where the remnants of an abandoned paper mill stood. There, Gallaher was removed from the trunk and shot dead and point blank range. His body was dumped into the river and the remains were found two days later. When Linwood was arrested months later, he was still wearing a ring stolen from Gallaher’s hand.

September 30: Mary Wilfong

On September 30, sixty-two year old private nurse Mary Wilfong was followed home to her Richmond apartment. The gang surrounded her just outside the door, and Linwood crushed her skull with a baseball bat. The gang then entered her apartment and looted it of valuables.

October 5: Blanche Page and Charles Garner

Several days later on October 5, just two blocks from the Briley home on 4th Avenue in Richmond, Blanche Page and her 59 year old boarder Charles Garner were both brutally murdered by gang members. Page was bludgeoned to death. Garner was fatally assaulted with a variety of weapons, including a baseball bat, five knives, a pair of scissors, and a fork. The pair of scissors and the fork were left embedded in Garner’s back.

October 19: Harvey Wilkerson, Judy Barton, and their son

On October 19, J.B. led the gang on the prowl for yet another victim that night. The account stated that J.B. had promised a judge earlier that day that he was staying out of trouble while out on parole for a 1973 robbery and malicious wounding conviction. The narrative described Harvey Wilkerson living with his 23 year old wife Judy Barton, who was five months pregnant, and her five year old son Harvey. After noticing the gang’s presence down the street, Wilkerson closed and locked his door, and the action was noticed by the gang. The gang walked over to Wilkerson’s front door and knocked; Wilkerson allowed them in. Both adults in the home were overpowered, bound, and gagged with duct tape. Linwood manhandled Judy Barton into the kitchen, where she was raped within hearing distance of the others. Duncan Meekins continued the sexual assault. Linwood dragged Barton back into the living room, briefly rummaged for valuables, and then left the house. The three remaining gang members covered their victims with sheets. J.B. told Meekins, “you’ve got to get one,” and Meekins took a pistol and fatally shot the adult Harvey Wilkerson in the head. J.B. then shot Barton and the five year old boy to death. Police in the general vicinity heard the shots and later saw the gang members running down the street at high speed; police did not know where the shots had been fired. The bodies were not discovered until three days following the crime, but the gang members were soon rounded up afterwards.

Investigation and arrest

Interrogation of Duncan Meekins

During interrogation by police, Duncan Meekins was offered a plea agreement in return for turning state’s evidence against the Brileys. Meekins accepted the offer and provided a full detailing of the seventh month crime spree. The plea agreement was described as resulting in him escaping the death penalty and being briefly incarcerated at a Virginia prison away from any of the Briley brothers.

Capture and imprisonment

The Brileys split off from their two remaining free escapees at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and went to live with their uncle in the north part of the city. They were captured on June 19 by a heavily armed group of FBI agents and police. After returned to Virginia, few sought to plead for their lives to be spared.

Trial and sentencing

The account described that, because of Virginia’s “triggerman” statute, both J.B. and Linwood received numerous life sentences for murders committed during the spree, but faced capital charges only in cases where they had physically committed the actual killing of the victim. Linwood was sentenced to death for the abduction and murder of John Gallaher Gallaher. J.B. received two death sentences, one each for the murders of Judy Barton and her son Harvey.

A Richmond judge presiding at one of the trials summed up the case following the verdict:

"this was the vilest rampage of rape, murder and robbery that the court has seen in thirty years."

Briley and J.B. were sent to death row at Mecklenburg Correctional Center near Boydton in early 1980.

Appeals

Linwood E. Briley filed his second petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 on September 24, 1984. After full briefing, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents and dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The district court granted a certificate of probable cause allowing an appeal to the court.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief on October 9, 1984 and directed the mandate issue forthwith. The Fourth Circuit addressed two constitutional claims:

1. Briley argued that his eighth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated because veniremen unalterably opposed to the death penalty were stricken for cause from the jury.
2. Briley argued that the death penalty in Virginia was imposed in an arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory manner in violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments, because a capital murder defendant was more likely to be sentenced to death for killing a white person than for killing a black person.

The district court rejected the claims on procedural and substantive grounds, including a finding of abuse of the writ under Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254, stating that both new issues could have been raised in prior proceedings. The Fourth Circuit further agreed with the district court’s rejection on the merits, including that its recent opinion in Keeten was dispositive for the Witherspoon jury challenge.

The Fourth Circuit also denied the motion for a stay of execution filed September 27, 1984.

Federal appeal text (verbatim)

Linwood E. BRILEY, Appellant, v. E.L. BOOKER, Warden, Appellee. No. 84-4006. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued Oct. 9, 1984. Decided Oct. 9, 1984. Before RUSSELL, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

On September 24, 1984, Linwood E. Sec. 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his 1980 capital murder conviction and resulting death sentence. After full briefing of the issues the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents and dismissed the habeas corpus petition. That court granted a certificate of probable cause allowing an appeal to this court. After full consideration of the issues raised in the briefs and after oral argument, we affirm the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The district court had previously rejected a petition for habeas corpus filed in May, 1983, as amended in September, 1983, by Briley. Briley v. Bass, 584 F.Supp. 807 (E.D.Va.1984). This court affirmed that denial in Briley v. Bass, 742 F.2d 155 (4th Cir.1984). The issues raised by Briley in his present petition were not raised in the prior petition. The facts leading to Briley's capital murder conviction have been adequately set out in this court's prior opinion and in the opinion of the Virginia Supreme Court following Briley's direct appeal. Briley v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 532, 273 S.E.2d 48 (1980). We need not restate them here. The district court's opinion more than adequately sets out the many state and federal petitions filed by Briley. In his present habeas corpus petition Briley challenges the constitutionality of his conviction on two grounds. First he claims that his eighth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated because veniremen unalterably opposed to the death penalty were stricken for cause from the jury. [Petition at 5] Briley finds support for this argument in a reserved question in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 and esp. n. 18 (1968); the district court's opinion in Keeten v. Garrison, 578 F.Supp. 1164, 1165 (W.D.N.C.1984), rev'd., 742 F.2d 129 (4th Cir.1984); and Grigsby v. Mabry, 569 F.Supp. 1273 (E.D.Ark.1983). Second, Briley contends that the death penalty in Virginia is imposed in an arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory manner in violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments because a capital murder defendant is more likely to be sentenced to death for killing a white person than for killing a black person. [Petition at 7]. For this contention Briley relies on a study by Gross and Mauro made available in October, 1983, [Briley memo at 61]. This argument was likewise presented to the Fifth Circuit in Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 578 F.2d 582, 613 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 976, 99 S.Ct. 1548, 59 L.Ed.2d 796 (1979). The district court rejected Briley's claims on both procedural and substantive grounds. First it found an abuse of the writ under Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 because both new issues raised here could have been raised in his prior proceedings. In his attack on the jury selection Briley relies on Witherspoon, decided over fifteen years ago. As the district court in Grigsby and our opinion in Keeten show, this issue is not a new one but one recognized by the legal profession prior to Briley's first habeas corpus filing in 1983. Likewise the data upon which Briley relies to challenge the application of the Virginia death penalty and the argument itself were available prior to action on the first habeas corpus petition. We find no error in the district court's ruling that Briley had abused the writ by not raising these issues earlier. This conclusion of the district court conformed clearly to the Supreme Court's reasoning in Woodard v. Hutchins, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 752, 78 L.Ed.2d 541 (1984). In that case--as here--the petitioner had filed a second petition for habeas relief in which for the first time he raised for the same reasons as the petitioner in this case "that the jury selection process was unconstitutional." The Court, speaking through Justice Powell, then proceeded to declare: "Hutchins offers no explanation for having failed to raise these claims in his first petition for habeas corpus, and I see none. Successive petitions for habeas corpus that raise claims deliberately withheld from prior petitions constitute an abuse of discretion." At ----, 104 S.Ct. at 753, 78 L.Ed.2d at 544. In explanation of the term "deliberately withheld," Justice Powell in note 3 said: "There is no affirmative evidence that the claims were deliberately withheld. But Hutchins has had counsel throughout the various phases of this case, and no explanation has been made as to why they were not raised until the very eve of the execution date." Justice Powell concluded his opinion with this significant statement: "A pattern seems to be developing in capital cases of multiple review in which claims that could have been presented years ago are brought forward--often in a piecemeal fashion--only after the execution date is set or becomes imminent. Federal courts should not continue to tolerate--even in capital cases--this type of abuse of the writ of habeas corpus." Equally well known was petitioner's second substantive point. It was a matter that had often been raised in the legal and sociological journals and in dicta in various court decisions. See Spinkellink v. Wainwright, supra, 578 F.2d at 612-14. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), also bars the raising of these issues in a federal habeas corpus petition because neither was raised at trial. We agree with the district court that Reed v. Ross, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984), provides no relief from Wainwright's bar. We further agree with the district court's rejection of Briley's two claims on the merits. Our recent opinion in Keeten, supra, is dispositive in this court of the jury challenge under Witherspoon. Moreover, the decision by the Supreme Court in Hutchins is fully supportive of Keeten. The petitioner's second substantive claim is that the Virginia death penalty statute is unconstitutional in application because a defendant is more likely to receive the death penalty when his victim is white than when the victim is black. This theory carries with it, as the petitioner candidly conceded in oral argument, the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty in any case would be constitutionally proscribed. His reasoning is that it is unconstitutional discrimination to make the killing of a white more likely to result in a death sentence, than the killing of a black person. Ergo, any death sentence for killing a white, whether by a white or by a black, is constitutionally invalid. But this argument would lead to denying to a state the right to impose a death sentence for killing a black, for, again, there would be discrimination. This is equivalent to an implicit invalidation per se of the death penalty on constitutional grounds. We are unwilling to hold on constitutional grounds that capital punishment is invalid, which is precisely what petitioner's argument requires, as petitioner's counsel, with commendable candor, concedes. Actually, this contention was carefully considered and properly disposed of by the court in Spinkellink, supra, 578 F.2d at 612, 613-14. In addition, as Briley notes the Virginia statistics in support of this argument presented are wholly inconclusive. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing the petitioner's habeas corpus petition, both on the procedural and the substantive grounds stated therein, and direct the mandate issue forthwith. Further, the motion of the petitioner for a stay of execution, filed September 27, 1984, is hereby denied. Linwood Earl Briley home last updates contact

Aftermath and incarceration history

Death row conditions and escape

Both Brileys were described as disruptive inmates at Mecklenburg Correctional Center near Boydton in early 1980, using guile and physical prowess to threaten fellow inmates and guards. A flourishing drug and weapon trade operated in the prison under their command.

On May 31, 1984, they were ringleaders in the six inmate escape from death row at Mecklenburg Correctional Center. During early moments of the escape, inmates took over the death row unit and both Brileys expressed strong interest in killing the officers they had taken hostage. They doused captive guards in lighter fluid and were prepared to toss in a lit match to complete the action. Willie Lloyd Turner stepped in the way of James Briley and forbade him from doing so. Meanwhile, cop killer Wilbert Evans prevented Linwood Briley from raping a female nurse who had been taken hostage while en route to delivering medication to inmates in the unit.

The events were described as being featured on I.D. Channel in “Escape from Death Row.”

Status of Anthony Briley

The narrative described that their younger brother Anthony Briley remained incarcerated in Virginia’s corrections system and came up for parole consideration every few years. It stated that, to date, his applications for parole had been denied by the state parole board.