Opinion ID: 615193
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New Trial Motion/Penalty Phase

Text: The court scheduled the penalty phase trial to begin just over three weeks after the verdict. Arizona law then provided that a judge, not a jury, determined the existence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances and decided whether to impose the death penalty. See ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-703(B). [1] In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), the Supreme Court held that this procedure violated a capital defendant's Sixth Amendment entitlement to a jury determination of any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in[his] maximum punishment. Id. at 589, 122 S.Ct. 2428. However, the Ring rule does not apply retroactively. Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 358, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004). Two days after the verdict, Pillinger submitted a four-page memorandum arguing that no statutory aggravating circumstances applied but listing several mitigating circumstances. Pillinger argued that the applicable mitigating circumstances included James's age, see ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-703(G)(5); the fact that Norton testified to inflicting the fatal blow; the fact that James was under duress, see id. § 13-703(G)(2); the evidence in a pretrial competency report prepared by Dr. Maier Tuchler that James was under the influence of LSD at the time of the murder; the opinion of Dennis Watterson, James's former probation officer, that James had been a model probationer; and the evidence that James did not participate in the actual killing. Pillinger either abandoned or failed to substantiate each of these mitigating circumstances at the penalty phase trial. Nine days before the penalty phase trial was to take place, Pillinger received a telephone call from Dr. Jack Potts, a psychiatrist for the Maricopa County Health Department who had treated James during his pretrial detention. Dr. Potts told Pillinger that James had been taking lithium since March 1982 to treat what Potts had diagnosed as cyclothymia, a form of bipolar disorder. Drs. Tuchler and Merton Berger, who conducted pretrial competency examinations of James, had not been made aware of the prescription for lithium or the diagnosis. Pillinger saw this as a smoking gun. He moved for a new trial on the ground that James's treatment with lithium, not disclosed to Pillinger by the state, deprived James of an insanity defense; interfered with the client-counsel relationship by masking James's otherwise psychotic mental state; tainted the competency evaluations by Drs. Tuchler and Berger; and adversely affected James's demeanor during his trial and testimony. The trial court granted Pillinger's request to subpoena all of James's pretrial treatment records from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Department of Health, as well as Pillinger's motion for fees to employ Tuchler to assist him in preparing a supplemental motion for a new trial. Pillinger's request did not contemplate using Tuchler to prepare any mitigation evidence related to James's mental health. The parties stipulated that the penalty phase trial would be combined with the hearing on Pillinger's new trial motion [s]o that . . . if a motion for new trial is not granted, the Court will be able to consider any evidence offered in these proceedings[,] whether in support of the Motion for New Trial or in support of mitigation[,] in connection with mitigation. The court conducted a combined new trial motion/penalty phase hearing that dealt almost exclusively with James's treatment with lithium. Pillinger called five witness: Jerry Ott, an inmate classification counselor with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office who conducted about a dozen counseling sessions with James; Dr. Potts; Dr. Tuchler; Watterson; and James's adoptive mother Winnie. Ott testified that James had been classified a 918 on intake. That designation meant mentally disturbed. Ott testified that James was a suicide risk when he was first arrested, and in fact attempted suicide by ingesting 24 aspirin, after which his stomach was pumped. But Ott conceded that another inmate classification counselor had characterized James as criminally sophisticated, and Ott's treatment notes indicate that James had a pattern of using superficial suicide attempts to release his frustrations. When Pillinger asked Ott what he thought of James as a person, Ott responded, I tr[y] not to put a value on it. In Ott's opinion, during the course of several months of counseling, James developed some more positive relationships with some other inmates, and was at times genuinely interested in making some positive changes. James could be rehabilitated [i]f he chose to. James reported some history of alcohol, cocaine, and LSD use to Ott, but Ott did not ask him whether he was intoxicated at the time of the murder. On cross, the state elicited Ott's belief that James cultivated the role of a victim. [R]ather than accepting responsibility for his own behavior, . . . it's other people's fault that he is in jail. Ott's testimony was brief because he had a plane to catch. Based on James's pretrial treatment records, Dr. Tuchler testified that James had been prescribed the antidepressant Tofranil, the antipsychotic Mellaril, and the antianxiety drug Librium, in addition to lithium. Tuchler testified that he was not aware that James was undergoing psychiatric treatment or taking lithium when he conducted his competency evaluation, but stated on cross that nothing he learned from reviewing James's records would have affected his conclusion that James was competent for trial. Tuchler confirmed that at the time of the evaluation, James stated that he had a long history of using mind-altering drugs including LSD, PCP, and marijuana, and that he had been high on LSD at the time of the murder. In Tuchler's opinion, James was telling the truth and LSD use may have compromised James's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. However, Tuchler conceded that while James may have been under the influence of some drugs at the time of the murder, Tuchler could not determine whether there was an alteration of [James's] mental state at that time. He had a good enough memory of the incidents for which he is charged. Dr. Potts's direct testimony covered only the possible effects of lithium on James's demeanor during trial. On cross, the state asked Potts whether he had diagnosed James's mental condition, but Pillinger objected, arguing that he didn't have [Potts] testify as to any psychiatric determination. Only as to the drugs and the possible effects. The court overruled Pillinger's objection, and Potts testified that he diagnosed James with psycholothalmic [sic] personality disorder. Potts was likely referring to cyclothymic personality disorder, which the court reporter rendered phonetically. Cyclothymia is a form of bipolar disorder characterized by chronic, fluctuating moods involving periods of hypomania and depression. Watterson testified that in 1977, when James was 19 years old, he was convicted of a burglary of his pastor's residence where he broke into the pastor's home and stole approximately $17 worth of loose change from a can. Watterson testified that James had difficulties at home specifically with his father, and that he attributed the burglary . . . to rebellion against [James's] father. Watterson reported that James served 10 weekends in jail and was a good probationer who completed his four-year term of supervision without serious incident. However, when Pillinger asked whether Watterson believed James could be rehabilitated, Watterson equivocated. From what I have read about the offense it is a dangerous offense. [James] committed a murder. There is a kidnapping charge. I do not know about the substantive nature of what transpired during the trial. I honestly can't say whether he is rehabilitable or not. Finally, James's adoptive mother Winnie gave extremely brief testimony. She explained that she and her husband Bradley adopted James when he was four and a half because Steven had no one to take him. There was no place for him to go. His mother had given him away. Winnie testified that James had been rejected many times and had been in other foster homes. Once James was adopted, however, Winnie testified that his life became normal and stable. She testified that James never had fits of rage or displayed violence, never threatened or mistreated anyone, and was kind to his pets. Asked whether James had a drug problem, Winnie testified that James did drink beer. . . . Other than that I guess I was not very up on drugs, and I was not aware. The Maricopa County Adult Probation Department prepared a Presentence Report (PSR) upon which the court relied in reaching its sentencing decision. In an interview with Officer Jane Santos, who wrote the PSR, James said that he had taken a large quantity of LSD just prior to this incident in an attempt to commit suicide, and that he was not fully aware of the events that occurred because of his diminished functioning as a result of the influence of LSD. James attributed his actions to the fact that he was on drugs when [the murder] occurred as well as the fact that he was very depressed because his girl friend had recently left him. James stated that because of duress, drug use, and depression, these were not normal circumstances and he was not behaving rationally under these conditions. The PSR related that Winnie stated that James had never demonstrated a propensity toward violent or vicious behavior. Winnie acknowledged that she and her husband experienced some difficulty with [James] during his adolescence, that he always seemed to `be in the wrong place at the wrong time.' James's adoptive father Bradley agreed that James was not a violent person and was always afraid of gangs. He stated that James was under stress at the time of this incident because James's wife had left him the previous year, . . . . [James] had been to see his biological mother in California, which had proved to be a very upsetting experience, and . . . his most recent girl friend had left him just prior to this incident. Bradley also noted [James's] unemployed status and the fact that he apparently had been using drugs. The PSR related further that Jim Stepp, a childhood friend, stated that he has never known [James] to demonstrate violence or initiate any fights. He opined that [James's] involvement in this offense must have been due to irrationality brought on by [James's] excessive drug use. Don Thorp, a cousin, stated that James was always somewhat rebellious and refused to follow rules imposed on him by society. He noted that [James's] father was a very strict disciplinarian who, although he obviously loved [James] tremendously, did not often demonstrate this. Thorp attributed the murder to immaturity as well as drug use. The PSR presented a skeletal social history based only on information provided by James. The PSR reported that James's biological father was a drug addict and was sentenced to prison when [James] was very young. . . . [James's biological] mother had too many children to support, consequently she gave up custody of him and his sister to the state where they were placed up for adoption. After a year and a half in foster care, James was adopted by Bradley and Winnie James, then in their 50s, who provided [James] a good, stable middle class home in which he always felt loved and protected. James stated that he has always felt rather depressed and unhappy, with feelings of inability to cope with pressure. As a consequence, James reported, he has attempted suicide approximately four times, primarily through deliberate car accidents. He also related several events during the recent past which he believes are significant. He stated that prior to this offense, he visited his natural mother for the first time, which he stated had a devastating effect on him. He also related that his wife divorced him after only a few months of marriage and he had tried to kill himself in a car accident as a result of severe depression brought on by this incident. James described his short-lived marriage to Marna Hulgren, which ended due to marital conflicts caused by his excessive drug usage. [James] stated that his ex-wife used to tell him she thought he was crazy. James described his substance abuse by admitting frequent and excessive use of a variety of illicit substances since 1972, including LSD, PCP, heroin, [and] marijuana. . . . He claim[s] to have been addicted to cocaine during 1979 and 1980. He attributes his involvement in the instant offense partially to the fact that he was hallucinating and taking LSD on the night of the offense. The PSR reported interviews with several of Maya's relatives, all of whom recommended that James receive the death penalty because of the cruelty of the murder and the grief that it caused Maya's family. The PSR also related a recommendation of Detective Davis that James receive the death penalty because Maya was killed by torture which occurred over a period of hours, . . . apparently suffered pain, and . . . this appears to have been a cold-blooded, cruel and senseless murder. In summary, the PSR concluded that James experienced disruptive and unstable circumstances until he was adopted by the James family at the age of four and a half. His acknowledged depressions and morosity in later years may be related to unresolved feelings of insecurity and/or anxiety as a result of early deprivation. He apparently received sufficient attention, love, and care from the James[es] from the age of five and they continued to be supportive of him. There is, however, some indication that he experienced an antagonistic relationship with his father during his adolescence and his prior criminal arrest was perceived as perhaps an unconscious attempt to defy his father and his beliefs. . . . [A]lthough [James] was twenty-three years old when the instant offense occurred, he was unemployed at the time and financially supported primarily by his parents, indicating that he had not yet learned to be responsible for himself or to rely on his own initiative to become independent of his parents. This may have contributed to feelings of inadequacy, powerlessness, anger, and depression. . . . It also seems reasonable that a great deal of peer pressure was involved in the commission of these offenses, but [James's] claim of having been threatened with death by the codefendants for refusal to participate seems questionable. . . . [I]t was [James] who chased [Maya] after he ran from the trailer and brought [Maya] back to the others, it was [James's] gun which was used to coerce [Maya], it was [James] who drove [Maya's] vehicle and provided a place to dispose of the body, and, by his own omission, it was [James] who dragged [Maya's] body into the mine shaft. [James's] culpability in the execution of this offense seems primary. The PSR recommended a death sentence. One week after the evidentiary hearing, the trial court heard argument on and denied Pillinger's motion for a new trial. It then heard argument on the sentence. Pillinger jettisoned most of the arguments he had made in his pre-hearing memorandum and urged the court to find only two mitigating circumstances. Pillinger relied on the statutory mitigating circumstance that James's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-703(G)(1), and the non-statutory mitigating circumstance that James could be rehabilitated, id. § 13-703(G). With respect to diminished capacity, Pillinger relied entirely on Dr. Tuchler's testimony that James had reported LSD use before the murder. With respect to rehabilitation, which Pillinger billed as most important, Pillinger argued that Watterson had described James as rehabilitable and that Ott had referred to James's progress in his appreciation of himself and his role in society. In response, the state correctly pointed out that there was no testimony by any of the investigating officers that [James] appeared to be under any kind of drugs . . . other than his own statement that he either had used PCP or LSD. The state also correctly pointed out that Pillinger had misrepresented Watterson's testimony: Watterson had expressed no opinion on James's prospects for rehabilitation. Pillinger conceded his mistake and abandoned that mitigating circumstance. The trial court sentenced James to death. The court found two aggravating circumstances: James committed the offense as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of anything of pecuniary value, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-703(F)(5); and James committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner, id. § 13-703(F)(6). The court found that the state had established the pecuniary gain aggravating circumstance because James participated in stealing Maya's wallet and car, and in using Maya's credit card to buy gas and cigarettes, and in attempting to obtain a cash advance. The court found the heinous, cruel, or depraved aggravating circumstance established because the victim in this case suffered prolonged and excruciating mental, physical and psychological pain and distress, and that such pain and distress were inflicted deliberately and sadistically. Several hours passed between the time [James] and his co-murderers formed the intent to kill the victim and the time that they did kill him. During this time the victim was viciously beaten all over his body, including his head, face and groin. He was taunted and his murder was openly and blithely discussed in his presence. Early in the evening, he attempted escape, and was caught by [James] and returned to[James's] home. His repeated pleas to be released in return for all his valuables were rejected. He was robbed of all possessions he had with him. He was held at gunpoint for hours. He was kidnapped and spent hours traveling to the scene of his death in his own automobile. After finally arriving at the scene of his murder in a remote, isolated desert area, he was shot, causing his clothing to catch on fire. He was then viciously beaten with fists, boards and rocks until finally he expired. The evidence shows that he had been beaten beyond recognition prior to his death. In short, the murder was committed in an especially cruel manner. . . . [T]his was a totally senseless murder. Even if the events of the evening began as the perpetrators now claim, there was no reason for the killing other than the perpetrators' greed and their arrogation to themselves of the role of executioners to those whose sexual preferences they purport to decry. [James] carried out this murder in a depraved manner, indicating a total disregard of even minimal feelings of compassion for a fellow human being. The manner in which the killing was accomplished has already been detailed. Following the killing, [James] bragged about his role in it and of the difficulty he and the others had in finally making Juan Maya die. [James's] statements evidence no compassion or remorse and indicate he felt he was justified in killing someone whom he believed to be different than himself. The mode of disposing of the body itself demonstrates a certain callousness and depravity and disregard for the victim's family who might never have learned of the fate of Juan Maya, but for the later brazenness of [James] and his co-murderers. The court rejected diminished capacity as a mitigating circumstance, finding that [w]hile [James] later made a self-serving statement that he had drugs the night of the murder, the evidence is clear that his capacity was not impaired. Because the court found no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency, Arizona law required the imposition of a death sentence. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-703(E); see also, e.g., Robinson v. Schriro, 595 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 566, 178 L.Ed.2d 427 (2010).