| Capital Habeas Cases |
|
Patton v. Mullin,
No. 03-6140 (10th Cir., September 21, 2005) (Publish): Very lengthy capital habeas case denying relief on all grounds.
|
|
|
Malicoat v. Mullin,
No. 03-6301 (10th Cir., October 11, 2005) (Published): Oklahoma capital habeas case affirmed over several claims. Notable for discussing the "Eye for an Eye" engraving on the Sword of Justice located behind the bench in the Grady County Courthouse--complete with photos at the end of the opinion. The Circuit held that the sculpture did not constitute structural error and the appellate lawyer was therefore not ineffective for failing to raise it on direct appeal.
|
|
|
Marshall v. Cathel,
No. 04-9007 (3rd Cir., November 2, 2005): 20-year-old capital murder case where sentencing relief is affirmed on the basis of an IAC claim (basically trial counsel did not prepare for, or present, a sentencing phase argument).
|
|
|
Brown v. Sanders,
No. 04-980 (U.S., January 11, 2006): Complex capital habeas decision where the Court reverses a Ninth Circuit habeas grant where the state supreme court had invalidated two of the four special circumstances that made Sanders eligible for the death penalty in California. The case presents a complex discussion of capital habeas jurisprudence and the difference between "weighing" and "non-weighing" states (referring to the death penalty scheme). The Court jettisoned the distinction in cases where an aggravator is invalidated and quoted the following rule: This Court is henceforth guided by the following rule: An invalidated sentencing factor (whether an eligibility factor or not) will render the sentence unconstitutional by reason of its adding an improper element to the aggravation scale in the weighing process unless one of the other sentencing factors enables the sentencer to give aggravating weight to the same facts and circumstances. This sets forth a fairly straight-forward and workable rule; but unfortunately for Sanders, the facts of his case fell under the "unless" part of the rule and his death sentence was affirmed. NOTE: This was a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Scalia with Chief Justice Roberts in the majority with Scalia and the rest of the conservatives.
|
|
|
Evans v. Chavis,
No. 04-721 (U.S., January 10, 2006): Yet another rebuke of the Ninth Circuit by the Supreme Court in another federal habeas case reviewing a state court criminal conviction. This case deals with the one-year statute of limitations requirement under the AEDPA governing federal habeas cases. The monkey-wrench in this case is California's quirky system regarding time frames to file notice of appeal. In California, there is no set time for filing appeals in cases raising collateral review attacks in criminal cases. Such an appeal must be brought in a "reasonable" time, and a decision on the merits by the state appellate court does not necessarily mean that the "reasonable time" requirement was met(!) The Court held that poor Chavis did not appeal in a "reasonable" time even under California standards and thus he is SOL.
|
|
|
Franklin v. Anderson,
No. 03-3636 (6th Cir., January 9, 2006): Capital habeas winner on biased juror grounds (she just did not understand the presumption of innocence) that got to federal court via an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim. Good discussion of procedural default principles as the Circuit held that Ohio's rules were not strictly or regularly followed and thus could not serve to default the claim.
|
|
|
Hamilton v. Mullin,
No. 04-5067 (10th Cir., January 24, 2006) (Published): Oklahoma capital habeas case affirmed over several issues including prosecutorial misconduct, victim impact evidence issues, and other death penalty issues. The facts are particularly brutal in this case arising out of Tulsa.
|
|
|
Welch v. Sirmons,
No. 05-6159 (10th Cir., June 20, 2006) (Published): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: Oklahoma death inmate denied relief on multiple claims. Particularly interesting in this case is the issue of victim impact testimony. The Circuit has held that victims can not recommend a sentence to the jury. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has construed state statutes as allowing this practice. In Welch's case, all five victim impact witnesses told the jury to sentence Welch to death (and it did). The Circuit held this was error but was harmless.
|
|
|
Bland v. Sirmons,
No. 05-6013 (10th Cir., August 3, 2006) (Published): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: Oklahoma capital habeas case affirmed over multiple issues.
|
|
Belmontes v. Ayers,
No. 01-99018 (9th Cir., June 13, 2008): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: California capital case in which the panel reversed a denial of habeas relief on the basis IAC at the penalty phase. This is a very lengthy opinion and is factually intensive. The issue was failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence.
|
|
Delozier v. Sirmons,
No. 06-7107 (10th Cir., July 18, 2008) (Published): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: Oklahoma capital habeas case AFFIRMED over a claim of IAC but with several sub-issues.
|
|
Jells v. Mitchell,
No. 02-3505 (August 18, 2008): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: Capital habeas case where denial of habeas relief is reversed as to the penalty because of IAC for failure to investigate and present evidence during the penalty phase. The panel, in a split decision, held that the Ohio state courts applied the Strickland standard to the facts of the case in an objectively unreasonable manner.
|
|
Bond v. Beard,
No. 06-9002 (3rd Cir., August 20, 2008): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: Another capital habeas case affirmed as to the conviction but death penalty vacated based upon IAC and counsel's failure to investigate properly the defendant's background and mental health issues.
|
|
Kindler v. Horn,
No. 03-9010 (3rd Cir., September 3, 2008): 1. Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases; 2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Capital habeas winner on a claim based on Mills v. Maryland (the jury instructions and verdict form created a reasonable likelihood that the jury believed it could only consider mitigating circumstances that jurors unanimously agreed upon). The panel also found reversible error in trial counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence.
|
|
Mason v. Mitchell,
No. 05-4511 (6th Cir., October 3, 2008): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: Capital habeas case penalty phase winner where the death penalty is vacated on an IAC claim for failure to conduct a reasonable background investigation.
|
|
Johnson v. Bagley,
No. 06-3846 (6th Cir., October 10, 2008): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: Another capital habeas case where the death penalty is vacated on an IAC claim involving trial counsel's failure to investigate mitigation evidence. The panel described the investigation has "anemic and leaderless" that suffered from at least three conspicuous flaws: 1) failing to interview Johnson's mother; 2) failing to read the large number of files obtained from the Ohio Department of Human Services; 3) and no one was apparently in a leadership role in the mitigation investigation.
|
|
|
Spisak v. Mitchell,
No. 03-4034 (6th Cir., October 20, 2006): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Capital case winner resulting in vacatur of the death penalty based upon trial counsel's closing argument during the sentencing phase (bizarre closing in which counsel described graphically the crime and told the jury his client deserved no sympathy, had no good thoughts, has done no good deeds, and is "sick" and "twisted") and also because of an "acquittal first" jury instruction."
|
|
|
Ayers v. Belmontes,
No. 05-493 (U.S., November 13, 2006): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: This case deals with the infamous "factor (k)" in California's prior capital sentencing scheme. This factor provides that the jury may consider "[a]ny other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime[.]" The mitigation focused on Belmontes' good behavior in prison and he argued that this instruction caused the jury to limit his mitigation evidence to consideration tied to the crime itself rather than forward-looking evidence such as his proffered good conduct in prison. HELD: factor (k) is consistent with the constitutional right to present mitigating evidence in capital sentencing proceedings.
|
|
|
Joseph v. Coyle,
No. 05-3111 (6th Cir., November 9, 2006): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: Grant of habeas in a capital case is affirmed under the AEDPA where capital case had the following errors: 1) insufficient evidence that Joseph was the "actual killer" under state law; 2) jury verdict did not convict him of a capital crime; 3) ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to understand and object to the indictment and jury instructions; 4) Brady violations; and 5) prosecutorial misconduct.
|
|
|
Nelson v. Quarterman,
No. 02-11096 (5th Cir., December 11, 2006) (en banc): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: The en banc Fifth Circuit, in a very contentious and lengthy opinion (166 pages in all with the dissents) vacates a Texas death sentence on the basis that the Texas scheme precluded the jury from giving full effect to mitigating evidence as required by Supreme Court precedent.
|
|
|
Davis v. Coyle,
No. 02-3227 (6th Cir., January 29, 2007): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: Capital state habeas case reversed when defendant was not allowed to present evidence of his good behavior in prison during the five years from his initial death sentence to his re-sentencing hearing.
|
|
|
Anderson v. Sirmons,
No. 04-6397 (10th Cir., February 21, 2007) (Published): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases; Procedural Default; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: REVERSAL OF A DEATH SENTENCE of an Oklahoma death row inmate based upon penalty phase IAC because trial counsel focused almost exclusively on the first-stage of the trial and failed to uncover mitigating evidence in the form of family history, mental health history, and drug usage. The Circuit stated: "the absence of this readily available mitigation evidence left the jury with no explanation for the murders other than the prosecution's assertion Anderson was "evil." Although the case against Anderson was strong and the murders in this case were horrific, courts have not hesitated to grant relief in similar circumstances where the absence of available mitigation evidence left the jury with a "pitifully incomplete" picture of the defendant. Had the jury been presented a complete picture of Anderson's background and history, there is a reasonable probability at least one juror would have struck a different balance between the mitigating and aggravating factors." NOTE: The panel also noted that Rule 9.7(G) of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (requiring subsequent post-conviction applications to be filed within 60 days new facts are discovered) is not "adequate" to serve as a procedural bar because COCA itself does not always follow it.
|
|
|
Sanborn v. Parker,
No. 99-678-C (W.D. Ky., February 14, 2007): 1. Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases; 2. Prosecutorial Misconduct; Improper Questions: Instructive capital habeas case where the court granted sentencing phase relief where the State's psychologist, called in rebuttal to refute the defendant's claim that the murder was committed under extreme emotional distress, gave testimony indicating that the defendant had changed his story to one that supported the defense strategy after meeting with "someone" which was a clear reference to defense counsel. The State's witness essentially elicited attorney-client information from the defendant and the State utilized the information at trial.
|
|
|
Young v. Sirmons,
No. 05-6282 (10th Cir., May 15, 2007) (Published): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: Oklahoma death row inmate Kevin Young is denied relief in the Circuit over claims involving: 1) sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction; 2) failure to instruct on lesser-included offenses; 3) ineffective assistance of counsel during both stages; 4) and improper witness identification testimony.
|
|
|
Schriro v. Landrigan,
No. 05-1575 (U.S., May 14, 2007): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: This is another 5-4 opinion involving a death penalty case. If you think you have a difficult client, just read the facts of this opinion. Landrigan apparently obstructed his attorney's efforts to presence mitigation evidence on his behalf and told the sentencing judge to "bring on" the death penalty which, of course, the judge did. Then, in post-conviction proceedings, Landrigan alleged IAC for failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence. The federal District Court denied the claim in a habeas proceeding without holding an evidentiary hearing. The en banc Ninth Circuit reversed with instructions for the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the District Court did not err in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing because Landrigan could not establish prejudice under circumstances where he refused to allow any mitigation evidence to be presented.
|
|
|
Rivera v. Quarterman,
No. 06-70022 (5th Cir., October 18, 2007): 1) Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases; 2) Death Penalty; Mental Retardation: Rivera's mental retardation claim under Atkins is affirmed (the circuit affirmed the finding of the District Court that Rivera is mentally retarded), but the case is reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of equitable tolling on the State's claim that the petition was time-barred.
|
|
|
Cummings v. Sirmons,
No. 06-7091 (10th Cir., October 30, 2007) (Published): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: Oklahoma death row inmate's habeas denial is AFFIRMED over claims of: 1) IAC of trial and appellate counsel for failing to seek DNA testing, challenge the confession, obtain various records, and a variety of alleged shortcomings by appellate counsel; 2) admission of uncorroborated testimony of accomplices; 3) misjoinder of counts; 4) and the lack of jury instruction on the credibility of accomplice testimony.
|
|
|
Morales v. Mitchell,
No. 00-3694 (6th Cir., November 2, 2007): 1) Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases; 2) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Capital habeas case where the death penalty was vacated on the basis of IAC of trial counsel for failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence.
|
|
|
Darwin Desmond Brown v. Sirmons
No. 06-5071 (10th Cir., February 5, 2008) (Published): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: Oklahoma capital habeas case affirmed over several claims of constitutional error.
|
|
Gilson v. Sirmons
No. 06-6287 (10th Cir., April 2, 2008) (Published): Habeas Corpus; Capital Habeas Cases: This a very lengthy (103 pages) capital habeas case out of Oklahoma involving the notorious murder of 8-year-old Shane Coffman. The panel ultimately AFFIRMED the denial of habeas, but some of the issues are interesting; and, Judge Henry penned a dissent, finding a Beck error by the trial court's denial of a lesser crime instruction. The first issue involved the quirky verdict form. Gilson was charged under the child-abuse murder statute. The jury was instructed Gilson could have committed First Degree Murder under this statute by engaging in child abuse himself or permitting the child abuse that led to the murder OR the jury could check the box to designate that it was "divided as to the underlying theory." It checked the box indicating that it was divided as to the underlying theory.
This led the panel into a discussion of Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991), which I have found to be one of the most difficult cases to understand. As I understand the panel's conclusion, it held that Oklahoma has defined First Degree Murder as including both actual infliction of child abuse that leads to death and also permitting such abuse (which is unique among the states, according to the panel at p.23); and such a definitional construction is consistent with Due Process under a Schad analysis because willful commission of abuse and willful permission of abuse are not so "disparate as to exemplify two inherently separate offenses."
Other issues included: 1) an insufficient culpability claim under Tison/Enmund; 2) an Ex Post Facto claim regarding an after-enacted statute; 3) the trial court's refusal to instruct on lesser-included offenses (Judge Henry dissented on this claim); 4) preclusion of expert witness by the defense to testify regarding the credibility of the child-witnesses; 5) IAC in failing to introduce evidence of Gilson's brain damage. AFFIRMED.
|
|
