F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E DWAR D H AR OL D S C HA D, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. C H A R L E S L . R Y A N , A r i z ona D ep artm en to f C o rrect i o n s, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 07- 99005 D. C . No . C V- 9 7 0 2 5 7 7 - P HX - R OS D is tr ic t o f

A r iz o n a , P h o e n ix AM ENDED O RDER

B e f or e : T H O M A S , C i r c ui tJ udge a nd C api t a l C a s e C oor di na t or T he ful l courthas bee n adv i se d o f the pet i t i on for r eheari ng and rehear i ng en b a n c . P u r s u a n t to th e ru le s ap p lic ab le to c ap ita l c a s e s in w h ic h a n e x e c u tio n d a te ha s be e n s c he dul e d, ade a dl i ne w a s s e tbyw hi c h a nyj udge c oul d r e que s tavot e on w h e th e rth e p a n e l’s o r d e r s s h o u ldb e r e h e a r de n b a n c . A j udge r e que s t e d avot e on w he the rt o he a rthe pa ne l ’ s or de r s e n ba nc , a nd av o te w a s c o n d u c te d . A m a jo r ityo f th e a c tiv e , n o n - r e c u s e dju d g e s e lig ib le to v o te on the en banc cal l vo t ed agai nstre hear i ng the panel ’ s order s e n b anc. T here fore , the pet i t i on for r eheari ng en banc i s D E N IE D . N o further pet i t i on s f or panel r e h e a r in g o rr e h e a r in g e n b a n c w ill b e e n te rta in e d . E n b a n c p r o c e e d in g s w ith 

# FI LED MA R 04 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

re spec tt o the orders ar e c on cl ud ed. T he panel w i l l i ss ue a s epar at e order c onc e rni ng the pe t i t i on f orpa ne l r e he a r i ng.O r de r , S c ha d v. R y a n, N o. 07- 99005 ( 9th C i r . F e b. 26, 2013) , E C F N o. 1 11 5 [herei naft erM aj ori ty O rder ] . Judg e G raber di ss ent ed on the grou nd s that S c ha d c oul d note s t abl i s h pr e j udi c e f orhi s pr e vi ous l ye xhaus t e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m. 1

F OR P UB L I CAT I ON S c ha d v. R y a n, N o. 07- 99005 C i rc ui tJudg e T A L L M A N , w i th w ho m C hi ef C i rc ui tJudg e KOZ I NS KI a nd C i rc ui tJudg es O ’S C A N N L A IN , BY BEE , CA L L AH AN , BEA , M . SM I TH a nd I KU T A jo in , di ss ent i ng fr om the deni al of re hear i ng en banc: T he m a j or i ty ’ s s t a yof

e xe c ut i on a nd r e m a nd or de ri n Sc had op enl y def

i es the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s di re ct i ve i n thi s very c as e and t akes ou r habeas j uri sprudence do w n a road thathas a l re ady bee n rej ec t ed. Judg es R ei nh ar dtand S chroeder, 1 w r i t i n g f o rad i v i d e d p a n e l , f

a i l t o ap p r o p r i a t e l yap p l yth e s u b s t a n t i v e Su p r e me C ourtpr e c e de nt s i n C ul len v. P i nh ol ster , 131 S . C t . 1388 ( 2011) , a nd M art i nez v . R y an , 13 2 S . C t . 13 09 (201 2). T hei r orderneedl es sl y a dd s y ears of addi t i on al de l a yi n c a rry i ng outthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d on atw i c e c onvi c t e d m ur de r e rby w i l l fu l l y i g n o ri n g th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s ex p ress g u i d an ce t o ap p l y P i nh ol sterhere a n d b yr e f

u s in g to in te rp r e t M

art i nez , 13 2 S . C t . at13 15 , narr ow l y a s the C ou rthas c o m m a n d e d . B yf

a ilin g to ta k e th is c a s e e n b a n c o u rc o u rt h a s u n f o rtu n a te ly a l l ow e d the m a

j or i tyt o s tr e t c h M

art i nezbeyond i t s l i m i t ed sc op e, and p erm i tt ed S c ha d t o bol s t e rapr e vi ous l ye xhaus t e d Str i c kland cl ai m w i th n ew fe dera l habeas 

# FI LED MA R 04 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSIn hi s pet i t i on for c ert i orar i , w hi ch w as fi l ed the sam e daythatthe panel 2 de ni e d hi s M ot i on t o V a c a t e a nd R e m a nd, S c ha d r e l i e d on M art i neze x te n s iv e ly an d sp eci fi cal l y i n v o k ed h i s m o t i o n b efo re th e p an el rai si n g th e sam e arg u m en t s, not i ng tha tthe pa ne l ha d noty e t“ a c t e d on the m ot i on. ” P e t i t i on f orW r i tof C e rt i or a r i a ti , i v, 14, S c ha d v. R y a n, 133 S . C t . 432 ( 2012) ( N o. 12- 5534) , 2012 W L 6947825. I n hi s r e pl ybr i e f , he a ga i n r e l i e d e xt e ns i ve l yon M art i nezand n ot ed thathe had “ pres ent ed the [M art i nez ] is s u e to th e lo w e rc o u rt w h o d e c lin e dto consi der i t . ” R epl y t o B ri ef i n O pp osi t i on t o P et i t i on for aW ri tof C ert i orar i at

2 evi dence i n cl ear vi ol at i on of P i nh ol ster . A ft erthe panel previ ou sl y r em anded thi s c as e t o the di stri ctcourtfor an e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g , th e S u p r e m e C o u rt v a c a te dth e p a n e l’s o p in io n , in s tru c tin g it to ap p lyP i nh ol

ster . R y an v . Sc had , 131 S . C t . 2092, 2092 ( 2011) . I n r e s pons e , the p an el i n i t i al l y am en d ed i t s o p i n i o n t o ap p l y P in h o ls te r, corr ec t l y r ec og ni zi ng that A E D P A f

or e c l os e s af

e de r a l c ourt ’ s abi l i tyt o c ons i de ron the m e r i t s ne w f a c t s not r a is e d b e f

o r e as ta te c o u rt. Sc had v . R y an , 67 1 F . 3d 70 8, 72 2 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( per c u r ia m ) . I n 2 0 1 2 , S c h a d a g a in s o u g h t r e v ie w o f h is c a s e b yf

ilin g aM o tio n to V a c a te and R em and i n l i gh tof M art i nez , a n dth e s a m e p a n e l p r o p e r lyd e n ie dth e m o tio n . O rder , S chad v. R yan, N o. 07 -990 05 (9th C i r. Jul y 27, 20 12 ), E C F N o. 91 . S chad then att em pt ed t o rai se M art i nezonc e m or e i n ape t i t i on f orc e rt i or a r i , butthe S u p r e m e C o u rt d e n ie d r e v ie w , Sc had v . R y an , 133 S . C t . 432, 432 ( 2012) , a nd he un succ es sf

ul l y argued the M

art i nezI A C c l a i m a ga i n on hi s m ot i on f orr e he a r i ng, Sc had v . R

y an , 133 S . C t . 922, 922 ( 2013) . B e r e f tof a nyl e ga l l ys i gni f

i c a nt 22-4, S chad v. R yan, 13 3 S . C t . 43 2 (20 12 ) (N o. 12 -553 4), 20 12 W L 69 47 82 3. In

hi s pet i t i on for r eheari ng , he on ce agai n asked the C ou rtt o “ ent eran order r e m a ndi ng the s e pr oc e e di ngs t o the c ourtbe l ow f orf urthe rc ons i de r a t i on i n l i ghtof P i nh ol ster. . . M

ar t i nezv . R

y an . . . a nd i t s pr oge ny . ” P e t i t i on f orR e he a r i ng a t11, S c ha d v. R y a n, 133 S . C t . 922 ( 2013) ( N o. 12- 5534) , 2012 W L 7006576. 3 change of ci rc um st ance s i n the i nt er i m , the m aj ori ty has no w com pl et el y r ever se d i t s pri or rul i ng and h as agai n rem anded the ca se t o the A ri zona di stri ctcourtfor a se cond t i m e, di re ct i ng i tt o con si der the “ new ” M a rt i n ez c la im ( w h ic h th e m a jo r ity now c ha r a c t e r i z e s a s pr oc e dur a l l yde f aul t e d) , w hi l e ba c k- ha nde dl ydi s pa t c hi ng P i nh ol sterin am e r e f

o o tn o te . I T h is p a n e l s h o u ldh a v e s to o db yits o r ig in a l ru lin g ; P i nh ol sterp r o p e r ly ap p lie s to th is c a s e , a n d it b a r s S c h a df r o m in tr o d u c in g n e w m itig a tin g e v id e n c e in fe dera l courtfor acl ai m he has pre vi ou sl y e xh aust ed before the A ri zona court s. In P i nh ol ster , the S upr e m e C ourthe l d tha ti f ape t i t i one r ’ s c l a i m of

i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance of tri al coun se l has bee n adj ud i ca t ed i n a st at e c ou rtproceedi ng , fe dera l h ab e a s r e v ie w o f

th a t c la im is r e s tr ic te dto th e r e c o r dth a t w a s b e f o r e th e s ta te c o u rt. 1 3 1 S . C t. a t 1 3 9 8

– 1 4 0 1 . A s th e C o u rt th e r e e x p la in e d , “[ f ]e d e r a l c o u rts s i tt i ng i n habe a s a r e nota n a l t e rna t i ve f orum f ortry i ng f

a c t s a nd i s s ue s w hi c h a pri soner m ade i nsuffi ci entef fortt o p ursue i n st at e procee di ng s. ” Id . a t1401 ( a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) .4

P in h o ls te ra n d S c h a d ’s c la im s a r e , f o ra ll r e le v a n t p u rp o s e s , f a c tu a lly in d is tin g u is h ab le . B o th f ile d p e titio n s f

o rp o s t- c o n v ic tio n r e lie f , a r g u in g th a t th e ir tr i a l c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l byf

a i l i ng t o i nve s t i ga t e a nd p r e s e n t c e rta in m itig a tin g e v id e n c e a t s e n te n c in g . Sc had , 671 F . 3d a t721; P i nh ol ster , 1 3 1 S . C t. a t 1 3 9 6 . T h e n in f e d e r a l h ab e a s p r o c e e d in g s , b o th pe t i t i one r s r e a s s e rt e d the i ri ni t i a l c l a i m s of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

s e nt e nc i ng c o u n s e l, a tte m p tin g to b o ls te rth e m w ith a d d itio n a l f a c ts . Sc had , 67 1 F . 3d at 7 2 1

– 2 2 ; P i nh ol

ster , 1 3 1 S . C t. a t 1 3 9 6

– 9 7 . A s i n P i nh ol

ster , the l egal basi s f

or S chad’ s i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l c l a i m i s the s a m e now a s i tw a s be f or e the i ni t i a l pos t - c onvi c t i on s t a t e c ourt , a nd m er el y i m prov i ng the evi dent i ary s up po rtdo es no tprov i de a bas i s f or a f eder al c ourtt o ove rturn as t a t e c ourt ’ s r e a s one d opi ni on. W e w e r e r e ve r s e d i n P i nh ol ster f orpe rm i tt i ng the pe t i t i one rt o do j us ttha t , and thus , w e s houl d ha ve gone e n ba nc i n thi s c a s e t o c orr e c tthe m a j or i ty ’ s f a i l ur e t o appl yS upr e m e C ourtpr e c e de nta nd t o va c a t e the unw a rr a nt e d s t a yof e xe c ut i on. I I T h e m a jo r itya tte m p ts to c ir c u m v e n t th e S u p r e m e C o u rt’s h o ld in g in P i nh ol sterby conj uri ng up a “ new ” Str i c kland cl ai m , base d o n add i t i on al evi dence i de nt i f i e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e i n f

e de r a l habe a s pr oc e e di ngs . T he pr obl e m w i th theS c h a d ’s c h a r a c te r iz a tio n o f h is f o rm e ra n dc u rr e n t c la im d e m o n s tr a te th e ir 3 si ng ul arori gi n. S chad descr i bes the Str i c kland c l a i m r a i s e d i n pos t - c onvi c t i on re l i ef proceedi ng s a s “ no tprop er l y devel op ed” and the Str i c kland c l a i m he curr ent l y a dv ance s a s “ com pl et el y devel op ed. ” R epl y B ri ef for P et i t i on er A ppe l l a nta t7, S c ha d v. R y a n, N o. 07- 99005 ( 9th C i r . J a n. 11, 2013) , E C F N o. 1 0 0 - 1 . P in h o ls te rm a d e th e s a m e a r g u m e n t r e g a r d in g e v id e n c e o f o r g a n ic b r a in i m pai rm entt o tryt o excuse hi s horre nd ou s c ri m e. 5 m a j or i ty ’ s “ ne w c l a i m ” the oryi s tha tthe r e i s nothi ng ne w aboutS c ha d’ s c urr e nt c l a i m . I ta tt a c ks the s uf f i c i e nc yof

the s e nt e nc i ng i nve s t i ga t i on bytr i a l c ouns e l by al l eg i n g sh e w as i n effecti v e i n n o td o i n g en o u g h t o sh o w th atS ch ad w as a s y m p a th e tic p e r s o n d u e to h is p o o ru p b r in g in g . In st at e post -c on vi ct i on re l i ef proceedi ng s, S chad argued thathi s tri al c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e byf

a i l i ng t o pr e s e ntc e rt a i n m i t i ga t i ng evi dence atse nt enci ng desc ri bi ng the psyc ho l og i ca l and p hysi ca l abuse S chad e n d u r e d a s ac h ild . Se e Sc had , 6 7 1 F . 3 dat7 2 1 . In fed eral h ab eas p ro ceed i n g s, S chad cl ai m ed thathi s tri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o p re se ntaddi t i on al e vi de nc e of

thi s abus e , i nc l udi ng ne w de c l a r a t i ons “ di s c us s i ng S c ha d’ s c hi l dhood and i t s e ff

ec ton hi s m ent alheal th. ” Id . A tbott om , both c l a i m s a r e pr e m i s e d on tr i a l c ouns e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o pr e s e nt m i t i g at i o n ev i d en ce rel at i n g t o th e p h ysi cal an dp sych o l o g i cal i m p acto f th e ab u se s uf f e r e d byS c ha d. P i n h o l ster c o u ldn o t b e m o r e c le a ro n th is p o in t. M e r e ly 3 b o lsterin g th e e v id en ti ary b as is fo r th e c laim d o es n o t tra n sf o rm S ch ad ’s6

pr e vi ous l ya dj udi c a t e d Str i c kland cl ai m i n t o a n o v el cl ai m n o tb o u n db y P i nh ol ster o rth e s ta te c o u rt r e c o r d . See P i nh ol ster , 1 3 1 S . C t. a t 1 4 0 1 . T h e m a jo r ity im p ro p er ly co n clu d ed th at S ch ad ’s “n ew fa ctu al alleg atio n s” tran sf o rm ed S ch ad ’s e xhaus t e d Str i c kland c l a i m , a d j u d i c a t e do n th e m e r i t s i n s t a t e c o u rt s , i n t o a“ n e w” a n d p r o c e d u r a llyd e f

au lte d c la im . M a

jo r ityO r d e ra t 1 2 . II I A ft erdecl ar i ng thatS chad has advanced a “ new ” and procedural l y def aul t ed cl ai m , the m aj ori ty c on cl ud ed thatS chad m ayob t ai n revi ew of hi s f ul l y devel op ed Str i c kland cl ai m , com pl et e w i th the new evi dence i dent i fi ed i n federa l habeas p ro ce ed in g s. T h e m ajo rity re li es o n a to rtu re dco n stru ctio n o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s opi ni on i n M

a rt i n ez t o a rr i ve a tthi s a s t oni s hi ng c onc l us i on. T he C ourti n M

a rt i n ez hel d that“ a proceduraldefaul tw i l l no tbar afe dera l h ab e a s c o u rt f

r o m h e a r in g as u b s ta n tia l c la im o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e a t tr ia l if , in the i ni t i al re vi ew col l at er al proceedi ng , . . . coun se l i n thatproceedi ng w as i neff ec t i ve. ” M

art i nez , 132 S . C t . a t1320. P urport e dl yappl y i ng thi s e xc e pt i on, the m a j or i tys t a y e d S c ha d’ s e xe c ut i on da t e a f t e rc onc l udi ng tha tS c ha d’ s c l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

tr i a l c ouns e l w a s s ubs t a nt i a l . M a j or i tyO r de ra t15. T he m a jo r ityr e m a n d e d to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f o rd e te rm in a tio n o f

w h e th e rS c h a d ’s p o s tc o n v ic tio n c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e . Id .7

T he m a j or i ty ’ s r e l i anc e on M

art i nezis m is g u id e da n dw ith o u t b a s is . M art i nezis n o t ap p lic ab le h e r e b e c au s e th e A r iz o n as ta te c o u rt p r e v io u s ly ad j u d i cat ed S ch ad ’ s Str i c kland c l a i m on the m e r i t s , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not fi nd S chad’ s c l ai m t o b e procedural l y def aul t ed. T he m aj ori ty’ s e xtra ordi nary e f f o rts to u n ila te r a llyd e c lar e th a t S c h a d ’s c u rr e n t Str i c kland c la im is p r o c e d u r a lly d efau l t ed d efy th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s i n stru ct i o n s t o ap p l y P i nh ol ster , a n da m o u n t to atr a ns pa r e nta tt e m ptt o f urthe rde l a yS c ha d’ s e xe c ut i on da t e . S c ha d c a nnotr e l yon M a rt i n ez t o obt a i n r e l i e f

be c aus e the r e i s no pr oc e dur a l l yde f aul t e d c l a i m , a nd no n e e d to e s tab lis h e ith e rc au s e o rp r e ju d ic e . T h e e p h e m e r a l d e f au lt d e c la r e dis o n ly i n th e m i n d o f th e p an el m aj o ri ty. T h i s case i s co n tro l l ed b y P i nh ol ster , not M art i nez . F urtherm ore, even i f M art i nezappl i ed, S chad do es no tadvance a s ub st ant i al in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

tr ia l c o u n s e l c la im . See M aj ori ty O rderat17 –1 8 (G raber, J ., d is s e n tin g ) . A f

te ra n in d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f a ll e v id e n c e S c h a do f

f e r e din f e de r a l habe a s pr oc e e di ngs , the di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d tha tthe ne w m i t i ga t i on evi dence w as “ ei ther c um ul at i ve or . . . contra di ct ory t o the po rtra i tof P et i t i on er th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l p r e s e n te d a t s e n te n c in g ” a n dw o u ldn o t h a v e a lte r e dth e o u tc o m e . Sch a d v. Sch ri ro , 4 5 4 F . S u p p . 2 d8 9 7 , 9 4 4 ( D . A r iz . 2 0 0 6 ) . A s J udge G r abe rtr e nc ha nt l yc onc l ude d i n he rdi s s e nt , S c ha d c a nnot8

dem on stra t e pre

j ud i ce un der the appl i cabl e s t andard of B r e c ht v . A br aham s on , 507 U . S . 619 ( 1993) . T o e s t abl i s h pr e j udi c e , S c ha d “ m us te s t abl i s h notm e r e l ytha tthe [a l l eged err or] . . . cr ea t ed a p o s s ib ilityo f p r e ju d ic e , b u t th a t [ it] w o rk e dto h is ac tual a n d s u b s ta n tia l d is a d v a n ta g e , in f e c tin g th e e n tir e p r o c e e d in g w ith const i tut i on al error. ” Stokle yv . R y an , 705 F . 3d 401, 401 ( 9th C i r . 2012) (a l t er at i on s i n o ri gi nal ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). T hi s c as e di d n otm ee t the thr e s hol d r e qui r e m e ntof e xc e pt i ona l c i r c um s t a nc e s thr ough e i the rthe l e ns of P i nh ol sterorthe pr e

j udi c e a na l y s i s a rt i c ul a t e d i n Stokley . M a j or i tyO r de ra t17–18 ( G r abe r , J . , di s s e nt i ng) . O urm a nda t e s houl d ha ve i s s ue d aut om a t i c a l l yf ol l ow i ng th e S u p r e m e C o u rt’s d e n ia l o f S c h a d ’s p e titio n f

o rc e rtio r a r i w h ic h r e

je c te dh is M art i neza r g u m e n t. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 1 ; Be a rd s le e v . Br o wn , 393 F . 3d 899, 9 0 1 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . A M art i nezr e m a nd now onl ypos tpone s pr oc e e di ngs w i thout a n yh o p e o f

a lte r in g th e le g itim a te s e n te n c e im p o s e d . IV I f the s e c ont i nui ng M

art i nezr e m a n d s a r e r o u tin e lyp e rm itte d , o u rc ir c u it w ill ha ve f a i l e d t o f a i thf ul l yappl ythe he i ght e ne d s t a nda r d of r e vi e w m a nda t e d by A E D P A by perm i tt i ng S chad and o ther c api t al defe nd ant s t o p ursue bol st er ed ve r s i ons of

the i rpr e vi ous l ye xhaus t e d Str i c kland cl ai m s. T he m aj ori ty’ s order si m pl y e ncou ra ges s t at e pri soners t o evade P i nh ol sterby addi ng on e or m oreT h is w a s p r e c is e lyth e o u tc o m e p r e d ic te db yJ u s tic e s S c a liaa n dT h o m a s in 4 thei r M art i nezd is s e n t:

“ I gu aran tee thatan as se rt i on of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of tri al coun se l w i l l be m a de i n a ll

c api t a l c a s e s f

r om thi s da t e on, c aus i ng ( be c aus e of t od ay ’ s hol di ng ) e xecut i on of the se nt ence t o b e def erre d u nt i l ei ther th a t c la im , o rth e c la im th a t ap p o in te dc o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in fa i l i ng t o m ake thatcl ai m , has w orked i t s w aythrou gh the fe dera l s y s te m .” 13 2 S . C t . at13 24 (S ca l i a, J. , di ss ent i ng ). 9 f a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s w h e n r e - p le a d in g a n in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im in f e de r a l habe a s pr oc e e di ngs . T he f i na l i tyof de a th pe na l tyl i t i ga t i on w i l l be fru strat ed i f co u rt s v i ew th ese em b el l i sh ed ex h au st ed cl ai m s t o b e “ n ew cl ai m s” thatw er e procedural l y def aul t ed un der M

art i nez , and end l es s r em ands and further r o u n d s o f

ap p e a l s wi l l f

o l l o w. 4 T h e m a jo r ity ’s o r d e rp e rv e r s e lyin c e n tiv iz e s p r is o n e r s a n dth e irc o u n s e l to lo c a te a d d itio n a l, e v e n c u m u la tiv e , e v id e n c e d u r in g f e d e r a l h ab e a s p r o c e e d in g s . A ppl y i ng the m a

j or i ty ’ s l ogi c , thi s e vi de nc e m a ythe n be f ound t o ha ve f u n d a m e n ta llya lte r e d a n d tr a n s f o rm e dc la im s th a t w e r e a d ju d ic a te dd u r in g s ta te p o st -co n v i ct i o n rel i ef p ro ceed i n g s i n t o n ew cl ai m s n o tb o u n db y P i nh ol sterorthe s t a t e c ourtr e c or d. L e f

tunc he c ke d, the m a

j or i ty ’ s c onc l us i on c ontr a ve ne s the S upr e m e C ourt ’ s i ns truc t i ons tha t“ [ i ] tw oul d be c ontr a ryt o [ the ] purpos e [ of A E D P A ] to a llo w ap e titio n e rto o v e r c o m e a n a d v e r s e s ta te - c o u rt d e c is io n w ith10

ne w e vi de nc e i ntr oduc e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e i n f

e de r a l habe a s c ourta nd r e vi e w e d by thatcourti n the fi rs ti nst ance ef fe ct i vel y de nov o. ” P i nh ol ster , 1 3 1 S . C t. a t 1 3 9 9 . T he m a j or i ty ’ s de c i s i on t o s t a yS c ha d’ s e xe c ut i on da t e a nd r e m a nd t o the di s tr i c tc ourtw a s e rr one ous . W e s houl d ha ve r e he a r d thi s c a s e e n ba nc a nd corr ec t ed thi s unsup po rt ed order before the S up re m e C ou rt , for ase cond t i m e, a dm oni s he s us f

ornotappl y i ng P i nh ol

ster . I r e s p e c tf u llyd is s e n t.1

CA L L AH AN , C i rcu i tJu d g e, j o i n ed b y KOZ I NS KI , C hi e f C i r c ui tJ udge , a nd O ’S C A N N L A IN , T AL L MAN , BY BEE , a nd M . SM I TH , C i rcu i tJu d g es, di ss ent i ng fr om the deni al of re hear i ng en banc: O n A ugus t1, 1978, L or i m e rG r ove l e f thi s hom e i n B i s be e , A r i z ona , dr i vi ng h is n e w C a d illa c to v is it h is s is te rin E v e r e tt, W a s h in g to n . Sc had v . R y an , 671 F .3 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . H e n e v e rm a d e it o u t o f th e s ta te . H is b o d yw a s f

o u n d e ig h t d a y s la te ro n th e s id e o f th e r o a dn e a rP r e s c o tt. I d. E dw ar d S chad had strang l ed hi m – reduci ng the ci rc um fe re nce of hi s nec k b y f ou r i nches a n d b r e a k in g ab o n e in th e p r o c e s s –a n ds to le n h is c a r , c r e d it c a r d s , a n dje w e lry . I d. a t 7 1 2 . S c h a d m u r d e r e d G r o v e w h ile o n p a r o le a f te rs e rv in g 9 1⁄2 y e a r s f

o rh is r o le in th e s tr a n g u la tio n o f a n o th e rm a n , C la r e O d e ll M o rte n s e n , in U ta h . See J u d ith A c r e e , J

u d g e Mo v e s Sc h a d

T r ia l to Fla gs ta

ff , T he C ou ri er , M ay2, 19 85 , at 1 A. S c ha d w a s f

i r s tc onvi c t e d on O c t obe r5, 1979, a nd s e nt e nc e d t o de a th on D e c e m b e r2 7 , 1 9 7 9 . Sch a d v. Sch ri ro , 4 5 4 F . S u p p . 2 d8 9 7 , 9 0 4 ( D . A r iz . 2 0 0 6 ) . S chad w as conv i ct ed on re tri al on June 27 , 19 85 , and sent ence d t o d ea th for a s e c o n d tim e , b yas e c o n d ju d g e , o n A u g u s t 2 9 , 1 9 8 5 . Id .; Sc had v . A r i z ona , 1 1 1 S. C t . 24 91 , 24 91 (199 1). N ow , ov er33 ye ar s a ft erhe w as fi rs tconv i ct ed and aft er the S up re m e C ou rtdeni ed S chad’ s pet i t i on for c ert i orar i , the panel m aj ori ty has “r e c o n s id e r e d ” its o w n p r io rd e c is io n , lik e lyg iv in g S c h a da n o th e rs ix y e a r s to 

# FI LED MA R 04 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSH is to r ic a lly , it h a s ta k e n c ap ita l h ab e a s c a s e s a n a v e r a g e o f 3 .1 y e a r s to 1 r e s o lv e in f

e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u rt. N a n c yJ . K in g e t a l., E x e c ut i v e Sum m ar

y : H abe as L i t i g a t i o n i n U

. S. D istri ct

C o u rt s 7 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , av ai lable at h ttp s ://w w w .n c

jr s .g o v /p d f

f ile s 1 /n ij/g r a n ts /2 1 9 5 5 8 .p d f ( la s t v is ite dM a r . 4 , 2 0 1 3 ) . I n A r iz o n ac ap ita l h ab e a s c a s e s , it h a s ta k e n a n a v e r a g e o f 2 .8 y e a r s f

r o m th e d a te o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n u n til th is c o u rt is s u e s ad e c is io n , a n dit h a s g e n e r a lly t a ke n a nothe r0. 7 y e a r s be f or e the S upr e m e C ourti s s ue d ade c i s i on on ape t i t i on f o rw r it o f

c e rtio r a r i. P e g B o rtn e r& A n d yH a ll, Su m m ary of D eath Sentence P r oc e s s : D ata Se t

I R e s e ar c h R e

por t to A r i z ona Capi tal

Cas e C om m is s i on 30 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , av ai lable at

https : //w w w . a z a g. gov/ c c c / f i na l - r e port( l a s tvi s i t e d M a r . 4, 20 13 ). 2 liv e . F o rth e r e a s o n s d is c u s s e d b yJ u d g e T a llm a n , th e p a n e l m a jo r ity ’s le g a l b a s is 1 i s uns ound a nd, a s the di s tr i c tc ourta l r e a dyc onc l ude d, S c ha d’ s i ne f f e c t i ve assi st an ce cl ai m i s m eri t l ess. See Sch ri ro , 454 F . S upp. 2d a t 9 4 0

– 4 4 . T h e s o le poi ntof thi s e xe r c i s e w a s t o buyS c ha d m or e t i m e – the ve rythi ng he t ook f r om L ori m erG rove and C l ar e O del l M ort ense n. V i ct i m s have r i gh t s, t oo . T he panel m aj ori ty’ s dec i si on here ca val i er l y di sr egar ds tho se ri gh t s i n favor of a tw i ce c o n v ic te d m u r d e r e rw h o h a s a lr e a d yh a dth e b e n e f it o f 3 3 y e a r s o f

le g a l p r o c e s s . I r e s p e c tf u llyd is s e n t.