FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES LYNN STYERS, 

No. 07-99003 Petitioner-Appellant,

D.C. No.

v.  CV-98-02244-PHXDORA B. SCHRIRO, Arizona EHC

Department of Corrections, OPINION Respondent-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

August 20, 2008—Pasadena, California

Filed October 23, 2008

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Jerome Farris and

Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

14855
COUNSEL

Cary Sandman of Waterfall Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw

& Villamana, Tucson, Arizona, and Amy Beth Krauss, Tucson, Arizona, for the petitioner-appellant. 

Terry Goddard, Attorney General, and Jeffrey A. Zick, Kent

Cattani and J.D. Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General of the

State of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, for the respondentappellee. 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

James Lynn Styers, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus

petition, challenging his conviction and death sentence for

conspiracy, first degree murder, and kidnaping. We affirm the

district court on all counts, except Styers’ claim that the AriSTYERS v. SCHRIRO 14859
zona Supreme Court failed to fulfill its obligations under Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738 (1990). 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In early December 1989, Styers shot and killed the fouryear-old son of Debra Milke, the woman with whom he and

his daughter shared an apartment.1 A jury subsequently convicted him of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first

degree murder, child abuse and kidnaping. With respect to the

murder count, the trial court found three statutory aggravating

factors and no mitigating factors sufficiently substantial to

call for leniency, and imposed the death penalty. 

After exhausting his direct appeals2 and state collateral

review, Styers petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal

court, raising a number of constitutional claims regarding his

trial and sentencing proceedings. The district court denied his

petition, but granted a certificate of appealability as to Styers’

claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We

expanded the certificate of appealability to include also

Styers’ claims that the Arizona Supreme Court failed adequately to narrow a facially vague aggravating factor applied

in his case, and failed to fulfill its constitutional obligation,

under Clemons, to reweigh all aggravating and mitigating factors after striking one of the aggravating factors. 

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court had jurisdiction over Styers’ habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. 

1For a more detailed discussion of the facts, see the Arizona Supreme

Court’s opinion in Styers’ direct appeal, State v. Styers, 177 Ariz. 104, 865

P.2d 765 (1993). 

2The child abuse conviction and sentence were vacated on direct appeal.

See Styers, 177 Ariz. at 117, 865 P.2d at 778. The remaining convictions

were affirmed. Ibid.

14860 STYERS v. SCHRIRO
Styers filed his § 2254 petition after the effective date of

the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

(“AEDPA”). Habeas relief is therefore available only if the

state court ruling “resulted in a decision that was contrary to,

or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the

United States,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State

court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

DISCUSSION

I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Styers contends that he received ineffective assistance of

trial counsel based on counsel’s failure to move to strike the

jury panel on the grounds of prejudicial pre-trial publicity.3

A. Pre-Trial Publicity

The body of Christopher Milke was found by police in the

evening of Sunday, December 3, 1989. The following day, the

Arizona Republic, a Phoenix area newspaper, reported on its

front page that Milke, Styers, and Roger Scott were arrested

and charged with first degree murder. The paper further

reported that Milke was not present when the boy was killed,

but conspired with “the other suspects to have her son killed.”

The following day, another article appeared on the front page

of the paper speculating as to the possible motives for the killing, including life insurance proceeds and possible abuse.

However, the article also reported that the medical examiner

who performed the autopsy found no indication of either

3Although the district court certified additional allegations of ineffective

assistance of counsel, Styers does not raise these allegations in his opening

brief. We deem them waived. Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814,

818 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. King, 257 F.3d 1013, 1029 n.5 (9th

Cir. 2001). 

STYERS v. SCHRIRO 14861
physical or sexual abuse. The article ultimately indicated that

the chief motive appeared to be that Milke and Styers felt the

boy was too much trouble, but noted that Styers’ three-year

old daughter, who also lived at the apartment, was not

harmed. By the third day, the newspaper reported the substance of Scott’s statement to police, which included his

assertion that he was to receive $250 from Styers for his help

and that he drove Styers and Christopher to the general vicinity of the crime scene, after which Styers walked Christopher

to a nearby wash4 and shot him three times. Subsequent articles also reported on the funeral proceedings and reactions by

community members to the killing. One article printed several

written statements of fourth grade school children; while most

focused on their sorrow for Christopher, several children also

stated that death was the appropriate punishment for the killers. A total of twenty-five articles about the crime were published in the month of December. 

However, in the next seven months (January 1st 1990

through September 10, 1990), only five more articles regarding the crime were published. 

Debra Milke was the first of the three defendants to proceed to trial; her trial began on September 11, 1990. Over the

next month, twenty-six articles on Milke’s trial were published. While the majority of these articles focus on the contents of Milke’s confession, a few contain references to Styers

as the alleged triggerman and someone who plotted the murder with Milke. The jury returned a guilty verdict in Milke’s

case on Friday, October 12, 1990. 

Jury selection for Styers’ trial began three days later on

October 15, 1990. 

4A “wash,” also called an “arroyo,” is a “dry channel lying in a semiarid

or desert area and subject to flash flooding during seasonal or irregular

rainstorms.” 1 New Encyclopedia Britannica 590 (15th ed.1998). 

14862 STYERS v. SCHRIRO
B. Voir Dire Proceedings

The voir dire was conducted entirely by the trial judge. The

first group of prospective jurors called for questioning consisted of a venire of thirty-six. After notifying the panel of the

charges against Styers, the trial judge asked if anyone had

“seen, heard, or read anything about the case.” The trial judge

observed that “[v]irtually everybody” raised his or her hand.

The trial judge then asked whether any of the prospective

jurors had formed any opinion as to the “guilt or innocence”

of the defendant. Those who raised their hands in response to

this question were then questioned individually, and asked

whether they would be able to set aside their opinion. Any

juror who indicated in the negative was struck by the trial

judge. As jurors were excused, new prospective jurors were

rotated into the mix from a separate pool consisting of fortyfour. Of these, thirty-nine stated that they had heard of the

case, and eighteen admitted to having formed opinions they

could not set aside. All eighteen were excused. 

Of the final twelve jurors who rendered the verdict, six

came from the group of thirty-six who had “virtually” all

heard of the case, while the other six came from the group of

forty-four. Of these latter six, only one had not heard of the

case. However, none of the twelve jurors stated that he or she

had formed an opinion about this case — either qualified or

unqualified. 

C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

[1] To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Styers

must show that defense counsel’s performance was objectively deficient and resulted in prejudice. See Edwards v.

Lamarque, 475 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)

(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694

(1984)). Thus, Styers must not only demonstrate that defense

counsel’s failure to move to strike the jury panel was out of

“the wide range of professionally competent assistance,” see

STYERS v. SCHRIRO 14863
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, but also that, had counsel so

moved, there is reasonable probability that the motion would

have been granted.5Id. at 695; Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477

U.S. 365, 383-91 (1986). As such, “[t]he governing legal standard plays a critical role in defining the question to be asked

in assessing prejudice for counsel’s errors.” Strickland, 466

U.S. at 695. 

[2] In reviewing challenges to jury panels based on pre-trial

publicity, the Arizona courts apply the same criteria as that

employed by the United States Supreme Court. Thus, a defendant challenging a jury panel exposed to pre-trial publicity

must show that the publicity likely resulted in the denial of a

trial by fair and impartial jurors. See State v. Greenawalt, 128

Ariz. 150, 163, 624 P.2d 828, 841 (1981) (“our inquiry is

whether the publicity, extensive or otherwise, was prejudicial

to the point of having the probable effect of precluding a trial

by fair and impartial jurors”); Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S.

282, 302-03 (1977) (examining the impact of press coverage

on juror’s impartiality); Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794,

799-801 (1975) (same). 

In establishing his claim, a defendant may not merely rely

on the fact that the prospective jurors were exposed to pre5Generally, a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for

failure to file a particular motion must not only demonstrate a likelihood

of prevailing on the motion, but also a reasonable probability that the

granting of the motion would have resulted in a more favorable outcome

in the entire case. See, e.g., Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 390-91 (explaining

that to establish prejudice, a defendant must show not only that counsel

would have prevailed on a suppression motion, but also a reasonable probability that exclusion of the evidence would have resulted in acquittal).

However, because the motion in this case directly implicates the impartiality of the jury itself (as explained infra) no such additional or separate

showing of prejudice would appear necessary. See Dyer v. Calderon, 151

F.3d 970, 973, n.2 (9th Cir. 1998) (conviction obtained via jury containing

even one biased member requires automatic reversal); see also Sullivan v.

Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 281-282 (1993) (deprivation of right to jury constitutes structural error). 

14864 STYERS v. SCHRIRO
trial publicity, but must also establish that “the jurors [had]

formed preconceived notions concerning the defendant’s guilt

and that they [could] not lay those notions aside.” State v.

Walton, 159 Ariz. 571, 580, 769 P.2d 1017, 1026 (1989) (italics added) (citation omitted); State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290,

307, 4 P.3d 345, 362 (2000) (“[W]e are concerned with the

prejudicial effect of pretrial publicity, rather than merely the

amount of publicity.”) (italics in original). 

[3] Finally, the Arizona courts fully recognize that, if “a

defendant can show pretrial publicity so outrageous that it

promises to turn the trial into a mockery of justice or a mere

formality, prejudice will be presumed without examining the

publicity’s actual influence on the jury.” State v. Bible, 175

Ariz. 549, 563, 858 P.2d 1152, 1166 (1993) (citing Rideau v.

Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963)); see also Greenawalt, 128

Ariz., 162-63, 624 P.2d 840-841 (citing Sheppard v. Maxwell,

384 U.S. 333 (1966)); Nebraska v. Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427

U.S. 539, 554 (1976) (commenting that courts rarely presume

prejudice due to outrageous pre-trial publicity). 

D. Analysis

Styers acknowledges that he is not basing his ineffective

assistance of counsel claim on a theory of actual prejudice —

presumably because the voir dire transcript reveals no prejudice on the part of the seated jurors and he submitted no affidavits to the contrary to the post-conviction court. Instead,

Styers argues that the pre-trial publicity was so pervasive and

inflammatory that it created a presumption of prejudice and

thus trial counsel would have prevailed on a motion to strike

the entire venire. The argument fails on this record. 

[4] In Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 798-800 (1975),

the Supreme Court summarized the rare cases in which it had

previously found presumptive prejudice based on pre-trial

publicity. After so doing, the Court explained that these cases

“cannot be made to stand for the proposition that juror expoSTYERS v. SCHRIRO 14865
sure to information about a state defendant’s prior convictions

or to news accounts of the crime with which he is charged

alone presumptively deprives the defendant of due process.”

Id. at 799 (italics added). Since Murphy, the Supreme Court

has twice rejected presumptive prejudice claims based on pretrial publicity in cases involving far more inflammatory publicity than that in Styers’ case. 

For example, in Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984), the

media revealed the defendant’s “prior conviction for murder,

his confession, and his prior plea of temporary insanity.” Id.

at 1029. Despite the fact that 77% of the venire questioned

admitted they would “carry an opinion into the jury box,” and

8 out of 14 jurors and alternates seated admitted that they at

some time had formed an opinion as to defendant’s guilt, id.

at 1029-30, the Court concluded that “the voir dire testimony

and the record of publicity do not reveal the kind of ‘wave of

public passion’ that would have made a fair trial unlikely by

the jury that was empaneled as a whole.” Id. at 1040. It set

aside the Third Circuit’s finding of “presumed prejudice.” Id.

at 1031-32, 1040. 

In Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991), the Court

reviewed a claim in which the petitioner contended that his

right to an impartial jury was violated because the trial judge

refused to question prospective jurors about the specific contents of the news reports to which they had been exposed. Id.

at 417, 431. The defendant had submitted 47 articles to the

trial court relating to the murder. Id. at 418. One or more of

these articles discussed details of the murder and investigation, included information about defendant’s prior criminal

record, information regarding his prior murder conviction,

and an indication that he had confessed to the instant killing.

Ibid. Of the twelve jurors who rendered the final verdict, eight

had heard of the case. Id. at 421. However, none of them

stated he had formed an opinion and all swore that they could

enter the jury box with an open mind. Ibid. In rejecting petitioner’s claim that further inquiry of the jurors was constitu14866 STYERS v. SCHRIRO
tionally required, the Court noted that this was not the type of

case where a “presumption of prejudice” was created by the

pre-trial publicity and recognized that its holding may have

been different had that been the case. Id. at 429-30. 

[5] In light of Patton and Mu’Min, Styers cannot demonstrate that his trial attorney would have likely prevailed on a

request to strike the jury panel. Unlike in Mu’Min and Patton,

there were no prior articles indicating that defendant had confessed to the crime, nor was there any mention of prior criminal history on his part. Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 418; Patton, 467

U.S. at 1029. And while Styers points to statements made by

his accomplice Scott which were reported in the newspaper

but not admitted at his trial, these statements were substantially similar to evidence which was ultimately admitted and

far less damaging than the inadmissible evidence published in

Patton. See Patton, 467 U.S. at 1029 (trial upheld as fundamentally fair, despite the fact that “publicity revealed [defendant’s] prior conviction for murder, his confession, and his

prior plea of temporary insanity — information not admitted

into evidence at trial.”) (italics added). Finally, the articles

published during Milke’s trial — and thus closer in time to

Styers’ trial — were virtually all factual accounts of her trial

proceedings, rather than opinion pieces containing inflammatory rhetoric. See Murphy, 421 U.S. at 801 n.4 (noting important distinction between “largely factual publicity” and “that

which is invidious or inflammatory”). 

Appearing to recognize that the Supreme Court opinions

are not in his favor,6 Styers relies almost exclusively on our

6As explained earlier, in reviewing jury challenges due to pre-trial publicity, the Arizona state courts typically apply the Supreme court precedent

in this area. Thus, Styers would fare no better under state law. See, e.g.,

State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 563-66, 858 P.2d 1152, 1166-69 (1993) (citing Supreme Court precedent prior to rejecting presumptive prejudice

claim involving 130 news articles, some of which incorrectly labeled

defendant as a child molester and mentioned that he failed a lie detector

STYERS v. SCHRIRO 14867
decision in Daniels v. Woodford, 428 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.

2005), in which we held that the denial of a change of venue

motion violated due process. However, Daniels was issued

almost fifteen years after Styers’ voir dire proceedings and

decided under pre-AEDPA standards. Daniels, 428 F.3d at

1196, 1211-1212. As such, Styers cannot rest his ineffective

assistance of counsel claim on Daniels.7See Lowry v. Lewis,

21 F.3d 344, 346 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that an attorney is

not ineffective for failing to anticipate a decision in a later

case); State v. Gates, 118 Ariz. 357, 359, 576 P.2d 1357, 1359

(1978) (state courts are not bound by lower federal court precedent). 

Finally, Styers argues that the state court’s finding of a fair

and impartial jury should not be accorded a presumption of

correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) because the voir

dire proceedings were far too brief and cursory to support

such a finding. However, even if Styers is correct on this point,8

test); State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290, 307, 4 P.3d 345, 362 (2000) (citing

Supreme Court precedent for proposition that courts rarely presume prejudice based on pre-trial publicity and ultimately rejecting claim in trial preceded by 850 articles in print or television and removal of 30 potential

jurors for fixed opinion). 

7Daniels is distinguishable in any event, as the publicity therein was far

more inflammatory. Daniels was convicted for shooting and killing two

officers who had previously shot him while he was fleeing from a bank

robbery, rendering Daniels a paraplegic. Daniels, 428 F.3d at 1186. Prior

to Daniels’ trial, a nine foot statue commemorating fallen police officers

was erected and publicly unveiled across from the courthouse where his

trial took place, numerous published letters called for his execution, and

facts regarding his past criminal history— including an arrest for shooting

at a police officer — were published by the press. Id. at 1211-12. 

8

In Patton, the Supreme Court held that the question of whether an individual juror could be fair and impartial was “plainly one of historical fact:

did a juror swear that he could set aside any opinion he might hold and

decide the case on the evidence, and should the juror’s protestations of

impartiality have been believed,” 467 U.S. at 1036, 1038, noting that “the

determination is essentially one of credibility, and therefore largely one of

demeanor.” However, the Court left open the question of whether a presumption of correctness should be applied to a trial court’s finding that a

“jury as a whole is impartial.” Id. at 1032, n.7. 

14868 STYERS v. SCHRIRO
his subsequent failure to carry his burden of persuasion in the

post-conviction court — through either a showing of actual or

presumed prejudice — precludes relief. See Bible, 175 Ariz.

at 564, 858 P.2d at 1167 (“The burden to show that pretrial

publicity is presumptively prejudicial clearly rests with the

defendant and is ‘extremely heavy.’ ”) (citation omitted); cf.

Daniels, 428 F.3d at 1211 (defendant conceded that “record

contains no findings that any jurors demonstrated partiality or

prejudice that could not be laid aside”). 

[6] The post-conviction state court’s determination that

Styers “failed to establish . . . . both prongs of ineffective

assistance of counsel” cannot be deemed unreasonable under

the AEDPA. See Edwards v. Lamarque, 475 F.3d at 1125-26.

II. Application of A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6)

[7] Styers alleges that in applying Arizona’s “especially

heinous or depraved” aggravating factor, under subsection

(F)(6), the state courts failed to apply a constitutionally sufficient narrowing construction. However, the United States

Supreme Court has squarely rejected this claim. See Lewis v.

Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 777 (1990) (stating that Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), “disposes of respondent’s claim

that Arizona has not construed its subsection (F)(6) aggravating circumstance in a constitutionally narrow manner). Thus,

so long as the Arizona State Supreme Court applied its narrowing construction to the facts of Styers’ case, all that

remains for our review is whether the “state court’s finding

was so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an independent

due process or Eighth Amendment violation.” Jeffers, 497

U.S. at 780. In this regard, “[a] state court’s finding of an

aggravating circumstance in a particular case — including a

de novo finding by an appellate court that a particular offense

is ‘especially heinous . . . or depraved’ — is arbitrary or capricious if and only if no reasonable sentencer could have so

concluded.” Id. at 783. This requires the application of the

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), standard. Id. 

STYERS v. SCHRIRO 14869
Here, when the Arizona Supreme Court rejected Styers’

(F)(6) challenge, it applied the narrowing construction contained within State v. Gretzler, wherein it had identified five

circumstances that support a finding of heinousness and depravity.9

 135 Ariz. 42, 52, 659 P.2d 1, 11 (1983). The court then

found that the senselessness of the murder and the helplessness of the four-year old victim, as well as Styers’ special

relationship to the child as his full-time caregiver, supported

the finding that this murder was especially heinous and

depraved. See Styers, 177 Ariz. at 115; 865 P.2d at 776. 

[8] The record reveals sufficient evidence to support the

application of the (F)(6) finding. See Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 52,

659 P.2d at 11 (noting that “either or both” the senselessness

and helplessness factors may, “together with other circumstances present in a particular case,” lead to the conclusion

that the offense was heinous or depraved); see also Correll,

137 F.3d at 1420 (rejecting challenge to application of F(6)

factor where trial record revealed, inter alia, helplessness of

victims and senselessness of murders). The Arizona Supreme

Court’s finding that Styers committed the murder in an “especially heinous . . . or depraved manner,” was neither arbitrary

nor capricious. Jeffers, 497 U.S. at 784; cf. Smith v. Mitchell,

453 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006) (“AEDPA requires the

federal courts to review Jackson claims with additional deference.”). 

III. Clemons duty to re-weigh

[9] On direct review, the Arizona Supreme Court found the

aggravating factor of pecuniary gain to be invalid. Styers contends that the court then failed to properly re-weigh the aggra9

In both Walton and Jeffers, the Arizona Supreme court had cited Gretzler in construing and applying the “especially heinous and depraved” factor. Jeffers, 497 U.S. at 770-71 (citing State v. Jeffers, 135 Ariz. 404, 430,

661 P.2d 1105, 1131 (1983)); Walton, 497 U.S. at 645 (citing State v. Walton, 159 Ariz. 571, 587, 769 P.2d 1017, 1033 (1989). 

14870 STYERS v. SCHRIRO
vating and mitigating circumstances as required by Clemons

v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738, 748-749 (1990). Under Clemons,

an appellate court in a “weighing state,” such as Arizona, can

affirm a death sentence based on an invalid aggravating factor

only after conducting either a harmless error review or

reweighing the mitigating evidence against the remaining

valid aggravating factors. See Jeffers v. Lewis, 38 F.3d 411,

414-415 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc), citing Clemons, 494 U.S.

at 741. In so doing, it must consider all relevant mitigating

evidence proffered by the defendant. See Jeffers v. Lewis, 38

F.3d at 414; Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 115 (1982).

A. Exhaustion/Procedural default

[10] The district court dismissed the Clemons claim on procedural default grounds, finding first that Styers failed to

exhaust it in the Arizona state courts and, second, that he

would now be barred from doing so under Arizona Rule of

Criminal Procedure 32.2(a)(3). However, after the Arizona

Supreme Court had decided his appeal, Styers filed a motion

for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 31.18 of the Arizona

Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Correll v. Stewart, 137 F.3d

1404, 1418 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that a motion for reconsideration is “an avenue of relief that the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly outline”). In his motion, Styers

specifically argued that the court had failed to consider relevant mitigating evidence during its independent review of the

sentence, in violation of Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104,

115-16 (1982), and the Eighth Amendment. Styers’ Clemons

claim is based on a violation of Eddings; he alleges that the

Arizona Supreme Court did not satisfy its constitutional duty

to reweigh the aggravating and mitigating factors because the

court improperly refused to consider relevant mitigating evidence. His motion for reconsideration adequately informed

the state court of the factual and legal basis for this claim. It

is therefore exhausted. Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6

(1982). 

STYERS v. SCHRIRO 14871
Although the district court did not resolve this claim on the

merits, we nevertheless do so here, as is our prerogative. See

Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 134 (1987) (Appellate

courts have discretion to “determine whether the interests of

comity and federalism will be better served by addressing the

merits forthwith or by requiring a series of additional . . . district court proceedings before reviewing the merits . . . .”). 

B. Merits

In conducting its independent review of the propriety of

Styers’ death sentence, the Arizona Supreme Court stated that

it had “considered all of the proffered mitigation,” see Styers,

177 Ariz. at 117, 865 P.2d at 778. However, its analysis prior

to this statement indicates otherwise. 

With regards to the evidence that Styers suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of his combat service in

Vietnam, the court stated the following:

This could also, in an appropriate case, constitute

mitigation. See State v. Bilke, 162 Ariz. 51, 53, 781

P.2d 28, 30 (1989) . . . However, two doctors who

examined defendant could not connect defendant’s

condition to his behavior at the time of the conspiracy and the murder. 

Styers, 177 Ariz. at 116, 865 P.2d at 777. (italics

added.) 

The court’s use of the conjunctive adverb “however,” following its acknowledgment that such evidence “could” in certain cases constitute mitigation, indicates that this was not

such a case.10 In Bilke, the case cited by the Styers court as an

10Dictionary definitions of “however” include “nevertheless; yet; in

spite of that; all the same.” Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th

ed. 2006). 

14872 STYERS v. SCHRIRO
example of when post-traumatic stress disorder evidence

could constitute mitigation, the defendant presented newlydiscovered evidence including a psychological report which

specifically tied his disorder to his criminal acts. See Bilke,

162 Ariz. at 52, 781 P.2d at 29. The Bilke court remanded the

matter for an evidentiary hearing, stating, “[h]ad the sentencing judge been aware that a mental disease known as posttraumatic disorder existed . . . and that the disorder was a

causative factor leading to the commission of the crimes, he

might well have sentenced the defendant differently.” Bilke,

162 Ariz. at 53, 781 P2d at 30 (italics added); cf. State v. Hoskins, 199 Ariz. 127, 152, 14 P.3d 997, 1022 (2000) (en banc)

(“If the defendant fails to prove causation, the circumstance

will not be considered mitigating.”) (italics added); State v.

Vickers, 129 Ariz. 506, 516, 633 P.2d 315, 325 (1981) (noting

that evidence presented by defendant established only that

character disorder existed, not that the disorder “impaired his

capacity on the night [the victim] was murdered so as to constitute a mitigating circumstance.”) (italics added.) 

[11] In applying this type of nexus test to conclude that

Styers’ post traumatic stress disorder did not qualify as mitigating evidence, the Arizona Supreme court appears to have

imposed a test directly contrary to the constitutional requirement that all relevant mitigating evidence be considered by

the sentencing body. Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37, 45 (2004)

(citing Eddings, and stating that nexus test is a test “we never

countenanced and now have unequivocally rejected,” and that

this holding was “plain under [its] precedents”); see Eddings,

455 U.S. at 114-15 (“[t]he sentencer, and the [appellate court]

on review, may determine the weight to be given relevant mitigating evidence. But they may not give it no weight by

excluding such evidence from their consideration.”) As such,

the court could not have fully discharged its obligations under

Clemons. Cf. Jeffers, 38 F.3d at 418 (rejecting Clemons claim

where it was “clear” that all proffered evidence in mitigation

had been considered). We reverse the district court’s decision

denying relief with regards to this claim. In so doing, howSTYERS v. SCHRIRO 14873
ever, we neither express nor imply any opinion as to the

appropriate sentence in this case. This is a matter for the state

courts, so long as the constitutional obligations under Eddings

and Clemons are honored. 

DISPOSITION

[12] We vacate the district court’s judgment denying the

writ of habeas corpus and remand with instructions to grant

the writ with respect to Styers’ sentence unless the state,

within a reasonable period of time, either corrects the constitutional error in petitioner’s death sentence or vacates the sentence and imposes a lesser sentence consistent with law. 

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part and

REMANDED.

14874 STYERS v. SCHRIRO