Entries tagged with “habeas corpus” from Harmfulerror

Somewhat lost among the four opinions issued yesterday was a per curiam decision in Sears v. Upton (scroll down a few pages).  It's a must-read for those handling capital or habeas cases.  The Court finds that the lower courts erred in assessing the prejudice caused by counsel's failure to fully investigate and present mitigating evidence.  The trial court had found that the defendant could not demonstrate prejudice because some mitigating evidence was presented, despite the fact that the mitigation presented at trial was minimal, and the mitigation that was available but not presented was overwhelming.  "Although the [trial] court appears to have stated the proper prejudice standard, it did not correctly conceptualize how that standard applies to the circumstances of this case."  Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito would have not granted certiorari.  Justice Scalia authored a dissenting opinion that is joined by Justice Alito.

In Smith v. Spisak, the US Supreme Court reverses an order of the 6th Circuit granting habeas relief to a death row inmate.  The Court finds that a decision by the Ohio Supreme Court was not clearly contrary to the Supreme Court's decisions in Mills v. Maryland, which concerned jury unanimity for mitigating circumstances.

Alvarez v. Smith - Whether local law enforcement agencies may seize and retain custody indefinitely of personal property without judicial or administrative review of the lawfulness of the continued detention of the property. Argument scheduled for 10/14/09

Beard v. Kindler.  Under the adequate-state-ground doctrine, does a state procedural rule like Pennsylvania's fugitive waiver rule preclude federal habeas corpus review even though the state procedural rule is discretionary?Argument scheduled for 11/2/09.

Black v. United States - Whether the "honest services" clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants "reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm," and if the defendants' reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government's request for a special verdict.

Bloate v. United States -  Whether time granted at the request of a defendant to prepare pretrial motions qualifies as "delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant" and is thus excludable from the time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq. Argument scheduled for 10/6/09.

Briscoe v. Virginia - If a state allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of a forensic laboratory analysis, without presenting the testimony of the analyst who prepared the certificate, does the state avoid violating the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by providing that the accused has a right to call the analyst as his own witness?

Florida v. Powell - Must a suspect be expressly advised to his right to counsel during questioning and if so, does the failure to provide this express advice vitiate Miranda v. Arizona?  

Graham v. Florida - Whether the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments prohibits the imprisonment of a juvenile for life without the possibility of parole as punishment for the juvenile's commission of non-homicide.Argument scheduled for 11/9/09

Hemi Group v. New York City - Whether city government meets the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act standing requirement that a plaintiff be directly injured in its "business or property" by alleging non commercial injury resulting from non payment of taxes by non litigant third parties. Argument scheduled for 11/3/09

Johnson v. United States - Whether under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act a prior state conviction for battery is in all cases a "violent felony," even when the state held that offense does not have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force.  Argument scheduled for 10/6/09  

Maryland v. Shatzer - Whether Edwards v. Arizona (1981), which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel, applies to an interrogation that takes place nearly three years later. Argument scheduled for 10/5/09 

McDaniel v. Brown - Nevada case - Whether, on federal habeas review, the evidence underlying the defendant's conviction for sexual assault was clearly insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia (1979).  Argument taken off calendar.

Padilla v. Kentucky - Does the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel require a criminal defense attorney to advise a non-citizen client that pleading guilty to an aggravated felony will trigger mandatory, automatic deportation, and if that misadvice about deportation induces a guilty plea, can that misadvice amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and warrant setting aside the guilty plea? Argument scheduled for 10/13/09  

Pottawattamie County v. McGhee - Whether a prosecutor may be subjected to a civil trial and potential damages for a wrongful conviction and incarceration where the prosecutor allegedly violated a criminal defendant's "substantive due process" rights by procuring false testimony during the criminal investigation, and then introduced that same testimony against the criminal defendant at trial.  Argument scheduled for 11/4/09

Smith v. Spisak - Did the Sixth Circuit contravene AEDPA by improperly extending Mills v. Maryland [re: mitigation jury instructions in a capital case]? Argument scheduled for 10/13/09

Sullivan v. Florida - Does imposition of a life without parole sentence on a thirteen-year-old for a non-homicide violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the freakishly rare imposition of such a sentence reflects a national consensus on the reduced criminal culpability of children?  Argument scheduled for 11/9/09

United States v. Comstock - Whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. 4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) "sexually dangerous" persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) "sexually dangerous" persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial.

United States v. Stevens - Is 18 U.S.C. 48, on depictions of animal cruelty, facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? Argument scheduled for 10/6/09

Weyhrauch v. United States - Whether, to convict a state official for depriving the public of its right to the defendant's honest services through the non-disclosure of material information, in violation of the mail-fraud statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 and 1346), the government must prove that the defendant violated a disclosure duty imposed by state law.

Wood v. Allen - Whether the state court's conclusion-that during the sentencing phase of a capital case the defense attorney's failure to present the defendant's impaired mental functioning did not constitute ineffective counsel-was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts and whether the circuit court erred in its application of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) to the review of the state court decision.  Argument scheduled for 11/4/09

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari in four cases this morning.  Scotusblog provides links to the petitions, oppositions, replies, amici briefs and opinions below.

Beard v. Kindler - Is a state procedural rule automatically "inadequate" under the adequate-state-grounds doctrine - and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas corpus review - because the state rule is discretionary rather than mandatory?

Black, et al.  v. United States - Whether the "honest services" clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants "reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm," and if the defendants' reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government's request for a special verdict.

Lewis, et al. v. City of Chicago - Where an employer adopts an employment practice that discriminates against African Americans in violation of Title VII's disparate impact provision, must a plaintiff file an EEOC charge within 300 days after the announcement of the practice, or may a plaintiff file a charge within 300 days after the employer's use of the discriminatory practice?

Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, et al.
Whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is consistent with separation-of-powers principles - as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board  is overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is in turn overseen by the President - or contrary to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution,  as the PCAOB members are appointed by the SEC.

In Sechrest v. Ignacio, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses death sentences based upon a 1983 conviction for two murder convictions in Washoe County.  The 41 page opinion addresses procedural default issues, law of the case, an alleged Miranda violation, and several penalty phase issues.  The Court holds that the prosecutor's repeated misstatements regarding the likelihood of Sechrest's release from prison by parole were he to be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole violated his due process right to a fair trial, and that the violation had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's sentencing decision.  The prosecutor had made four statements indicating that Board of Pardon Commissioners could -- and likely would -- release Sechrest if the jury returned a verdict of less than death.  The Court found the misconduct to be prejudicial after noting that "a jury sitting in a capital case must be given a clear choice between the death penalty and a life sentence." 

The Court also found that while the prosecutor's misconduct alone justified its holding, testimony by a psychiatrist exacerbated the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor's remarks.  Defense counsel had retained a psychiatrist to evaluate Sechrest.  Although defense counsel decided not to call the witness, counsel gave a copy of the expert's report to the State.  The State then called the psychiatrist as a witness and elicited the fact that he had examined Sechrest at defense counsel's request.  The psychiatrist informed the jury of Sechrest's criminal history, stated that he had a callous disregard for human life, and was an incurable sociopath who, if released, would pose a danger to others, particularly to little girls.  The Ninth Circuit rejected the findings by the state district court and federal district court that the psychiatrist's testimony was cumulative and instead noted the significance of testimony presented by a mental health expert.

The Court next found that defense counsel was ineffective for three reasons.  First, defense counsel should not have allowed the prosecution to review the psychiatrist's confidential report on Sechrest's mental health.  Counsel had decided not to call the psychiatrist as a witness, but inexplicably disclosed the confidential and privileged report to the prosecution.  Without this report the prosecution would not have had access to this privileged information.  "Defense counsel had absolutely no obligation to disclose [the] confidential report to the prosecution."  Second, defense counsel should not have stipulated to the prosecutor calling the psychiatrist as a witness for the prosecution.  Further, the jury was told that the psychiatrist was hired by the defense.  The Court rejected defense counsel's explanation at an evidentiary hearing, in which he stated that he did not object because he believed the psychiatrist would provide helpful information about Sechrest's troubled background, as this was not a sound strategic decision.  The Court found the explanation to be implausible as defense counsel did not call the witness and did not pursue or argue any mitigating factors related to Sechrest's troubled background.  Third, defense counsel's preparation for Dr. Gerow's testimony fell far below an objective standard of reasonableness.  Defense counsel did not speak with the psychiatrist after agreeing to let him testify for the prosecution.  The lack of preparation was evidence from counsel's lackluster performance at trial.

Congratulations on the victory to Tiffany Murphy and Michael Pescetta of the Federal Public Defender's Office.

Monday, November 3

US Supreme Court hears argument in Wyeth v. Levine (actions under state law for ineffective drug laws), Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association (1st Amendment and payroll deductions for political contributions), and Carcieri v. Kemprthorne (tribal trust lands).

Nevada Supreme Court holds en banc oral arguments.

 

Tuesday, November 4

Election day

US Supreme Court hears argument in FCC v. Fox Television (fines for broadcast of isolated expletives), US v. Eurodif (contracts for uranium and anti-dumping laws) and Jimenez v. Quarterman (whether the reinstatement of an appeal under Texas law tolls or restarts the one-year deadline to file a habeas petition under federal law).

Nevada Supreme Court holds en banc oral arguments, including arguments in Mack v. Estate of Mack and Higgs v. State.

 

Wednesday, November 5

US Supreme Court hears argument in Negusie v. Mukasey (federal immigration law and refugees who in engaged in persecution due to threats of death or bodily harm) and Van de Kamp v. Goldstein (whether supervising district attorneys possess absolute immunity against claims they failed to ensure line prosecutors disclosed constitutionally required information to criminal defendants).

Bar Admissions Ceremony - Northern Nevada

 

Thursday, November 6

Nevada Supreme Court opinion release day

 

Friday, November 7

Bar Admissions Ceremony - Las Vegas

Clark County Bar Association - New Admittees and Meet Your Judges Celebration

 

State v. Harte - The Court, sitting en banc, affirms an order of a district court partially granting a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a death penalty case.  The Court rejects the State's argument that McConnell v. State (felony murder cannot be used as the sole basis for liability for first degree murder and also used as an aggravating circumstance) was wrongly decided.  The Court also rejects the State's argument that there should be a new trial, rather than just a new penalty hearing, in capital cases in which the sole aggravating circumstance is found invalid under McConnell.  The majority opinion is authored by Justice Maupin and joined by Justices Gibbons, Douglas and Cherry.  Justices Hardesy, Parraguirre and Saitta concur but express a belief that there are three fundamental flaws in McConnell's analytical framework.

Hernandez v. State - The Court, sitting en banc, affirms a district court order denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital case.  In doing so, the Court declines to extend McConnell v. State to bar the dual use of torture as a theory of first-degree murder and as an aggravating circumstance to support a death sentence.  The Court, however, finds the aggravating circumstance of burglary to be invalid under McConnell, reweighs the aggravating and mitigating evidence and affirms the death sentence.  The Court rejects other post-conviction claims.  Justice Cherry dissents in part after finding that the defendant should have received a new penalty hearing because the jury may have imposed a sentence of less than death without the invalid aggravating circumstance.

Cortinas v. State - The Court (Justices Hardesty, Parraguirre & Douglas) holds that traditional harmless-error review applies when a general verdict based on multiple theories of liability may rest on a legally invalid alternative theory.  The Court also reaffirms its prior holdings that robbery is a general intent offense.

Rubio v. State - Counsel's affirmative misrepresentations of immigration consequences is an exception to the general rule that deportation is a collateral consequence that does not affect the voluntariness of a guilty plea.  Misrepresentations by a court interpreter, however, are not an exception to the general rule.  The Court also rules that the district court abused its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

 

Opinions in civil cases: 

Rivero v. Rivero -

Cook v. Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center -

Five Star Capital Crop. v. Ruby -

Estate of LoMastro v. American Family Ins. -

Village League v. State, Bd. of Equalization -

Mesagate HOA v. City of Fernley -

Lehrer McGovern Bovis v. Bullock Insulation