Opinion ID: 2753110
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The consequences of the majority’s remedy

Text: As noted above, to obtain habeas relief in federal court a petitioner must ordinarily demonstrate that the error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht, 507 U.S. at 631. By concluding that the error here was structural, the majority opinion relieves Taylor of that burden. That probably makes a critical difference. I would remand to the district court for the parties to address that question and for the district court to make a factual determination. Based on the record as it appears to me at this point, however, the evidence against Taylor appeared strong, and I think it would be an uphill climb for him to make that showing. Under California law, an aider and abettor must “share the specific intent of the perpetrator” of a crime in order to be found guilty. Beeman, 674 P.2d at 1326. In this case, Taylor would be guilty of aiding and abetting felony murder if he knew that the gunman entered Pioneer Chicken in order to rob it. It is doubtful that the jury would have concluded otherwise. Indeed, Taylor has since admitted that he and the gunman intended to rob a fast food restaurant that day and stole a car for that purpose. He admitted that they had robbed five or six restaurants in the previous month. Taylor’s sole defense would presumably be that he didn’t know that Hayes was planning to rob that particular restaurant. This seems extraordinarily weak, and the proposition that he could have persuaded the jury that his companion did not intend to rob the Pioneer Chicken seems fanciful. At oral argument before us, Taylor’s counsel conceded that the argument that he was 28 TAYLOR V. CATE not planning to rob the Pioneer Chicken was flimsy. We should not pretend otherwise.2 But retrying Taylor at this point would not be easy. The killing took place in 1987, more than a quarter century ago. Witnesses lose their memories, disappear, or die. Even with Taylor’s testimony, Hayes was acquitted by a jury when he was tried years after the events. In addition, Taylor could have an argument that a retrial on an aiding and abetting theory would be barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause. See, e.g., Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970); Santamaria v. Horsley, 133 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Taylor’s counsel has understandably been quiet about this argument, responding to inquiry at oral argument by saying only that the question is not currently before this court. At a minimum, the majority opinion imposes on the State the burden of trying to convict Taylor of a crime committed long ago, following a fair trial in which he had could have been honest about his role but instead gambled for a full acquittal and lost. This result is all the more bizarre considering how this case comes before us. Taylor objects that the State committed error in his resentencing. If California had not 2 Moreover, the crime underlying the felony murder, attempted robbery, may have been complete as soon as the gunman went into the lavatory to case the joint. In California, attempt may consist of “a direct but ineffectual act” done toward the commission of a crime. Cal. Jury Instr. 6.00; see, e.g., People v. Dillon, 668 P.2d 697, 704 (Cal. 1983) (substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the defendant committed attempted robbery, where the defendant and his companions “watched for their opportunity” to rob a marijuana field without entering it). There was testimony in the first trial that Taylor watched the gunman go into the lavatory and keep the door ajar, so he would have known that the gunman planned a robbery. TAYLOR V. CATE 29 moved to resentence him, this case would not be here. Taylor’s only option would be to plead that, contrary to the jury verdict, he was actually innocent of the personal use of a firearm special circumstance. But this claim, without any supporting constitutional challenge, would likely fail. See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404–05 (1993). To avoid all of this, the State could simply have declined to resentence Taylor. But we should be glad that it did. It would have been wrong for the State to hold Taylor on a theory of personal liability when it sought to convict Hayes under the same theory. “[T]here is surely something troubling about having the same sovereign, particularly acting through the same prosecutor, urge upon two juries a conviction of both A and B, when it is clear that the crime was committed by either A or B.” Thompson v. Calderon, 120 F.3d 1045, 1070 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (Kozinski, J., dissenting), rev’d, 523 U.S. 538 (1998). We should not punish the State of California for doing the right thing in this case by forcing it to retry Taylor or free him. Neither should we discourage other prosecutors from doing the right thing in the future. Justice is not served by the result reached here. I respectfully dissent.