Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 185

24 

WONG  v.  BELMONTES 

Per Curiam 

See  also  ibid.  (discussing  expert’s  federal  habeas  testimony 
on  importance  of  expert  testimony).  But  the  body  of  miti­
gating  evidence  the  Ninth  Circuit  would  have  required 
Schick to present was neither complex nor technical.  It re­
quired only that the jury make logical connections of the kind 
a  layperson  is  well  equipped  to  make.  The  jury  simply  did 
not  need  expert  testimony  to  understand  the  “humanizing” 
evidence;  it  could  use  its  common  sense  or  own  sense  of 
mercy. 

What  is  more,  expert  testimony  discussing  Belmontes’ 
mental  state,  seeking  to  explain  his  behavior,  or  putting  it 
in some favorable context would have exposed Belmontes to 
the Howard evidence.  See Darden v.  Wainwright, 477 U. S. 
168, 186 (1986) (“Any attempt to portray petitioner as a non­
violent  man  would  have  opened  the  door  for  the  State  to 
rebut with evidence of petitioner’s prior convictions. . . . Sim­
ilarly,  if  defense  counsel  had  attempted  to  put  on  evidence 
that petitioner was a family man, they would have been faced 
with  his  admission  at  trial  that,  although  still  married,  he 
was spending the weekend furlough with a girlfriend”). 

If, for example, an expert had testiﬁed that Belmontes had 
a “ ‘high likelihood of a . . . nonviolent adjustment to a prison 
setting,’ ” as Belmontes suggested an expert might, see Brief 
for  Appellant  in  No.  01–99018  (CA9),  p.  34,  the  question 
would  have  immediately  arisen:  “What  was  his  propensity 
toward  violence  to  begin  with?  Does  evidence  of  another 
murder alter your view?”  Expert testimony explaining why 
the  jury  should  feel  sympathy,  as  opposed  simply  to  facts 
that  might  elicit  that  response,  would  have  led  to  a  similar 
rejoinder:  “Is  such  sympathy  equally  appropriate  for  some­
one  who  committed  a  second  murder?”  Any  of  this  testi­
mony  from  an  expert’s  perspective  would  have  made  the 
Howard evidence fair game. 

Many of Belmontes’ other arguments fail for the same rea­
son.  He argues that the jury should have been told that he 
suffered an “extended bout with rheumatic fever,” which led