hat.capdefnet.orgLatest News | Habeas Assistance and Training

Skip to main content Member Login Search form Search Overview 8th Amendment From Furman to Gregg Guided Discretion Due Process Heightened Reliability The Lockett Doctrine Jury Selection and Sentencing Victim Impact Appellate Review Categorical Bans Habeas Update Helpful Cases Conflict of Interest Confrontation Clause Expert/Investigative Assistance Issues (Ake) Incompetence to be Executed Incompetence to Stand Trial Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Juror Misconduct Massiah/Henry Violations Suppression of Evidence/False Testimony Unconstitutional Prior Convictions Supreme Court Developments Cert Petitions Granted with Decision Pending Pending Cert Petitions of Interest Recent Decisions Past Decisions Upcoming Seminars People to Help You Federal Public Defenders Community Defender Organizations Administrative Office of the United States Courts Regional Resource Counsel State Defender Offices Private Organizations Links ABA Death Penalty Assessments Assorted Death Penalty Projects/Organizations Case Law, Statutes, Federal Regulations and Statistics Death Penalty Information Federal Defenders Forensic Information Guidelines and Standards Prosecutorial Misconduct Supreme Court of the United States Latest News February 25, 2020 - Recent Supreme Court Developments On February 24, 2020, the parties agreed to the dismissal of the certiorari petition in Methena v. Malvo , 18-217, in light of new law in Virginia eliminating a sentence of life without parole for juveniles. (Malvo, who was a juvenile at the time of the murders he was convicted of, was sentenced to life in prison without parole under a discretionary, rather than mandatory, sentencing scheme.) The question presented to the Supreme Court, on which it had granted review, was: "Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding—in direct conflict with Virginia’s highest court and other courts—that a decision of this Court ( Montgomery ) addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision ( Miller ) applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question?" On February 25, 2020. the Supreme Court issued its decision in McKinney v. Arizona , 589 U.S. ___ (Jan. 25, 2020) . The Supreme Court (Kavanaugh, J., with Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, JJ.) held that reweighing of the existing aggravating and mitigating circumstances under Clemons v. MIssissippi, is a permissible remedy for an Eddings violation, i.e., where constitutionally relevant mitigating circumstances were not considered by the sentencer, and when an Eddings error is found on collateral review, a state appellate court may conduct the reweighing on collateral review. The Court, among other things, rejected McKinney's argument that Clemons no longer remains good law in the wake of Ring v. Arizona , 536 U. S. 584, and Hurst v. Florida , 577 U. S. ___. The Court explained: " Ring and Hurst did not require jury weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and Ring and Hurst did not overrule Clemons so as to prohibit appellate reweighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances." And although there was a Ring/Hurst violation in this case because the sentencing judge rather than the jury found the aggravating factors, that provided no basis for relief to McKinney because Ring and Hurst do not apply retroactively in collateral proceedings such as this one. The Court was unpersuaded by McKinney's attempt to characterize the state supreme court's decision below as reopening the direct appeal. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissent, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ. Justice Ginsburg states: "I would rank the Arizona Supreme Court’s proceeding now before this Court for review as direct in character. I would therefore hold McKinney’s death sentences unconstitutional under Ring , and reverse the judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court." Read More January 23, 2020 - Florida Supreme Court reinterprets requirements of Hurst and the Florida Constitution On January 23, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a grant of sentencing relief to Florida death row inmate Mark Poole. State v. Poole, ___ So.3d ___ (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020) . The post-conviction court had granted relief based on its application of Hurst v. State , 202 So.3d 40,57 (Fla. 2016), which had held: "[B]efore the trial judge may consider imposing a sentence of death, the jury in a capital case must unanimously and expressly find all the aggravating factors that were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, unanimously find that the aggravating factors are sufficient to impose death, unanimously find that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, and unanimously recommend a sentence of death." Poole's sentencing jury had not been unanimous as to the death sentence and the post-conviction court concluded that the Hurst violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Florida Supreme Court revisited its earlier decision and "recede[s] from Hurst v. State except to the extent that it held that a jury must unanimously find the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt." This holding does not impact the revised Florida statute that now requires jury unanimity for a death sentence. Read More November 30, 2019 - Federal habeas relief granted to two California death row inmates On November 25, 2019, United States District Court Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the Central District of California granted federal habeas relief to Anthony Oliver on a Batson claim. Oliver v. Davis , 2:10-cv-08404-ODW (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2019) - Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus . Oliver, a Black man, was convicted and sentenced to death in Los Angeles County for a double murder and the attempted murder of a third victim. All victims were Black. Oliver's mistrial request was granted during the initial trial proceedings following the verdicts of acquittal of police officers in the Rodney King case which resulted in "civil unrest" in Los Angeles. During the subsequent jury selection proceedings, Oliver raised several challenges to the prosecution's removal of seven Black prospective jurors. Looking only to one of these prospective jurors, and after engaging in comparative juror analysis as had the California Supreme Court, Judge Wright ruled that " the only finding supported by the record is that the prosecutor’s excusal of V.H. was 'motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent.' (Citation omitted.) Petitioner has shown that the California Supreme Court made an unreasonable determination of the facts under § 2254(d)(2) in denying his Batson claim and has shown clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness under § 2254(e)(1)." On November 22, 2019, United States District Court Judge S. James Otero of the Central District of California granted federal habeas relief as to the death sentence of Mary Ellen Samuels based on trial counsel's ineffective assistance in failing to limit and exclude the mass of bad character evidence that was admitted during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial. Samuels v. Espinoza , 2:10-cv-03225-SJO (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019) - Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus . Samuels was convicted of soliciting and conspiring in the murders of Robert Samuels, her husband, and James Bernstein, her husband's alleged killer. The jury returned a verdict of death after almost five days of deliberations. The sole prosecution witness at the penalty phase was the sister of Samuels' deceased husband who provided relatively brief victim impact testimony. The prosecution relied overwhelmingly on the guilt phase evidence in seeking a death sentence. "The bulk of the objectionable evidence concerned Petitioner's use of cocaine and marijuana, her daughter Nicole's use of cocaine and Petitioner's provision of cocaine to...