Over a 17-day period, the Ninth Circuit rejected four habeas corpus petitions filed by prisoners who had their death sentences affirmed by California’s Supreme Court. Two of the decisions reversed district court rulings that had granted relief. Each decision applied a standard of review that is highly deferential to the Supreme Court. Here’s a quick recap.
Crew v. Ratliff — April 27
The Ninth Circuit in an unpublished memorandum (yes, that’s redundant) held “[t]he California Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law” when it affirmed the defendant’s death penalty for a 1982 murder conviction with a murder-for-financial-gain special circumstance (People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822); see also In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126 [denying a state habeas corpus petition]). The memorandum dealt briefly (it’s five pages long) with two challenges to the special circumstance finding. It also noted that the defendant was resentenced to life without parole in 2024.
Scott v. Broomfield — April 29
The Ninth Circuit published opinion (again, redundant) reversed a habeas grant that had been based on numerous claims of ineffective counsel during the guilt phase of his trial, but it remanded the case for consideration of other claims. The victim had survived for 10 months after being assaulted in 1986, during which time the defendant pleaded guilty to rape and attempted murder, and, after her death, he was then charged and convicted of murder and sentenced to death in a court trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence (People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188) and later rejected by opinion the defendant’s ineffective assistance claims made in a state habeas petition (In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783).
Burney v. Broomfield — May 7
The Ninth Circuit’s opinion upheld a habeas denial to a defendant whose death sentence for a 1992 kidnapping-murder/robbery-murder the Supreme Court affirmed (People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203). The Supreme Court also summarily denied state habeas petitions in 2009 and 2016, with Justice Werdegar partially dissenting in both. The federal appeals court rejected claims of many, many instances of judicial bias and misconduct, including the trial judge telling jurors that “ ‘[e]verybody should believe in’ the death penalty.” The Ninth Circuit concluded that, although “[t]he judge’s comments and behavior . . . [were] at times inappropriate” and “insensitive,” and that some comments were “inexcusable and had no place in a courtroom,” his “comments do not demonstrate that [he] had either a personal interest or direct involvement in the proceedings,” and, “[i]n context, . . . the challenged comments also do not show an intolerable risk of bias nor create an appearance of impropriety.”
The panel also found meritless other arguments. Among other things, the panel held, “The totality of the circumstances show that [the defendant’s] confession [to the police] was voluntary” and the defendant validly waived his Miranda rights.
Bradford v. Vang — May 14
The Ninth Circuit opinion reversed a district court ruling that had vacated a conviction and death sentence — affirmed by the Supreme Court (People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005), which also summarily denied state habeas petitions in 2001 and 2007 — for a 1988 robbery/rape/murder with the special circumstance of killing the victim to prevent her testimony in a criminal proceeding. It remanded for consideration of unresolved penalty phase claims. This was the second time the appeals court reversed a habeas grant for the defendant. (Bradford v. Davis (9th Cir. 2019) 923 F.3d 599.)
The court panel found unavailing arguments, including ineffective counsel and a Brady violation, related to the defense that the defendant was too intoxicated to meet the first degree murder standard of premeditation and deliberation.
It’s very unusual to have so many Ninth Circuit California capital habeas rulings in so short a time, but it’s not unusual to have the federal appeals court refuse to overturn Supreme Court death penalty decisions. The Ninth Circuit doesn’t always refuse, however. (See also: District court overturns death penalty the Supreme Court had affirmed.)
Related:
