In Benson v. Chappell, the Ninth Circuit today affirmed the denial of a condemned prisoner’s habeas corpus petition. The Supreme Court affirmed his death sentence 30 years ago (People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754) and denied state habeas relief in 1994, 1997, 2001, and 2006.
One judge on the federal appellate panel partially dissented, claiming, “[t]he California Supreme Court unreasonably determined that Benson’s counsel provided constitutionally adequate representation at the penalty phase.” She faults the attorney for not discovering and introducing evidence that, “[f]rom infancy until the age of nine, Benson was subjected to grotesque sexual and physical abuse at the hands of his foster family” and says, “Mitigating evidence of this magnitude clearly has a substantial probability of convincing at least one of twelve jurors to exercise mercy and vote for life rather than death.” The majority concludes, “the California Supreme Court could reasonably have determined that any shortcoming in trial counsel’s investigation was not prejudicial.”
Because of a very deferential standard of review, the Ninth Circuit’s decision is only an affirmance-lite of the Supreme Court. Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, the appeals court explained, ” ‘[a] state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as “fairminded jurists could disagree” on the correctness of the state court’s decision.’ ”
The Ninth Circuit usually, but not always, refuses to overturn California Supreme Court decisions.
Related:
