In Staten v. Davis, a 2-1 Ninth Circuit opinion today affirms the denial of a habeas corpus petition filed by a condemned prisoner whose death sentence the California Supreme Court affirmed 20 years ago (People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434). The Supreme Court also subsequently denied three state habeas corpus petitions.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Supreme Court’s work, however.
On an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because of a failure to introduce certain evidence, the federal appellate court concludes the Supreme Court’s summary denial of state habeas relief was “objectively unreasonable” in impliedly finding counsel’s conduct was not deficient.
The majority nonetheless denies federal habeas relief under a deferential standard of review. It concludes the Supreme Court was not objectively unreasonable in impliedly finding that the deficient lawyering was harmless. This is so even though the majority concedes that, if it was making the prejudice determination in the first instance, the failure to introduce the evidence “might be enough to ‘undermine [our] confidence in the outcome.’ ” The dissenting judge asserts the imputed no-prejudice finding was not “a reasonable application of clearly established [U.S.] Supreme Court law.”
The Ninth Circuit usually, but not always, refuses to overturn California Supreme Court death penalty decisions.
Related:
