Opinion ID: 2790291
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Causal Nexus and Rebuttal Evidence

Text: The state offers two additional arguments against our conclusion that J.B.’s deficient penalty-phase performance prejudiced Doe. First, it argues that J.B.’s failure to introduce evidence of the abuse Doe suffered – both as a child and in prison – cannot have prejudiced him because this evidence could not 64 Rompilla also had organic brain damage. Rompilla, 545 U.S. at 392. However, there is no indication that this was a determinative factor in the Supreme Court’s analysis, or even – buried as it is in a list of other unintroduced mitigating evidence – that it was more significant than any of the rest of it. To assume otherwise would be to assume, contrary to the Supreme Court’s express statements, that penalty-phase mitigating evidence will carry weight only when it offers a causative explanation for the offense. DOE V. AYERS 77 have explained why he committed the offense. This argument fails both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. The declarations of the two psychological experts retained by habeas counsel would have offered jurors a way to understand (though of course not to justify) Doe’s aggression as the product of repeated brutalization that left him suffering from PTSD. Additionally, both we and the Supreme Court have recognized that while demonstrating such a causative “nexus” between painful life experiences and the commission of the offense is one way in which mitigating evidence can be expected to alter a sentencing outcome, it is certainly not the only one. Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 286–87 (2004); see also Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37, 45 (2004) (stating that the nexus test is a test that the Supreme Court “never countenanced and now ha[s] unequivocally rejected,” and that this holding was “plain under [its] precedents”); Styers v. Schriro, 547 F.3d 1026, 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (“In applying this type of nexus test to conclude that [the defendant’s] post traumatic stress disorder did not qualify as mitigating evidence, the Arizona Supreme [C]ourt appears to have imposed a test directly contrary to the constitutional requirement that all relevant mitigating evidence be considered by the sentencing body.”). Unlike at the guilt phase, where the primary focus is on evidence offering a causative explanation, which might reduce formal culpability, mitigating evidence at the penalty phase also serves to increase jurors’ sympathy for or comprehension of the lives, and crimes, of defendants who have themselves suffered terribly. Sears, 561 U.S. at 951. It is well established that “[w]hile the question of innocence or guilt of the offense is essentially a question of fact, the choice between life imprisonment and capital punishment is both a question of underlying fact and a matter of reasoned moral 78 DOE V. AYERS judgment.” Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 370 (1992). “Evidence regarding social background and mental health,” such as the evidence that J.B. failed to present, is necessary to allow jurors to exercise reasoned moral judgment. Douglas, 316 F.3d at 1090. “Only then can we be sure that the sentencer has treated the defendant as a ‘uniquely individual human bein[g]’ and has made a reliable determination that death is the appropriate sentence.” Penry, 492 U.S. at 319 (quoting Woodson, 428 U.S. at 304). Second, the state argues that the strength of the mitigating evidence that went unheard at trial should be discounted to the extent that it would have opened the door to potentially damaging rebuttal evidence.65 There are three specific pieces of evidence at issue, suggesting but offering no proof that Doe had himself committed sexual assaults. All three would likely have been inadmissible, and none would have been inconsistent with the mitigation evidence discussed above. The first is a warrant issued for Doe’s arrest in his home state in connection with a rape; he was never arrested, charged or convicted. The bare fact that Doe was suspected of rape did in fact come in during the penalty phase of the 65 The state actually makes two arguments about this rebuttal evidence. The first is that it would serve to counterbalance the unintroduced mitigating evidence, thereby limiting prejudice. The second goes instead to the first prong of the ineffective assistance analysis: the deficiency of J.B.’s performance. The state suggests that had he known about both the mitigating evidence and the rebuttal evidence it might draw, he would have chosen to put on only the same limited mitigation presentation he offered at trial. When asked about this during the habeas hearing, J.B. said that this rebuttal evidence would not have made it more difficult for him to present evidence of Doe’s victimization to the jury. We see no reason to second-guess his assessment. DOE V. AYERS 79 trial, in order to rebut a character witness. The trial judge excluded all details of the alleged offense, which the state sought to introduce in order to rebut evidence of his good character – a purpose for which it would, at least, have been relevant. We doubt whether this evidence, ruled inadmissible for the purpose of demonstrating Doe’s bad character, would have been admissible to rebut the mitigating evidence related to his rape in prison, because evidence that Doe might have been the perpetrator of a rape outside of prison would have done nothing to undermine a showing that he himself had been the victim of rape in prison. See People v. Mitcham, 824 P.2d 1277, 1308 (Cal. 1992) (in bank) (“[W]e caution[] . . . that the scope of rebuttal must be specific, and evidence presented or argued as rebuttal must relate directly to a particular incident or character trait defendant offers in his own behalf . . . .” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The already-materialized risk that the jury would hear that Doe was accused of rape would not have dissuaded counsel from presenting additional mitigation, nor would it have substantially undermined that presentation. See Correll, 539 F.3d at 955 (rejecting the argument that because the prosecution could have presented “very damaging evidence in rebuttal,” defense counsel’s failure to present mitigating evidence was not prejudicial, because “a significant portion of that damaging rebuttal evidence was already available through the pre-sentence report”). The second piece of rebuttal evidence is a two-page document from Doe’s prison file, reflecting that he received a disciplinary infraction for being a member (though not a leader) of a group of prisoners allegedly involved in forcing others in a particular unit to engage in sexual acts. The form 80 DOE V. AYERS attributes these assaults to the group as a whole, and includes no statements about particular incidents nor about any specific acts of Doe’s. This is the only allegation of such behavior in his voluminous prison file, and is substantiated by no other evidence. The state’s brief refers to it, tellingly, as an “indication.” The third piece of evidence is the mention in a probation report that during Doe’s detention in a California jail prior to his murder trial, another prisoner asked to be moved, alleging that Doe propositioned him for sex and threatened to initiate sex without consent. There is no suggestion that anything further occurred, and his “[i]nmate records reflect no disciplinary action was taken on this instance.” Though these latter two pieces of evidence are perhaps more likely to have been admissible on relevance grounds, as they concern sexual abuse Doe allegedly perpetrated while confined, their unreliability might well have barred their introduction. See People v. Martinez, 74 P.3d 748, 762 (Cal. 2003). Even if this evidence was properly admissible, the jury would likely have given it little weight, given that neither of the reports was detailed or supported by any additional evidence, Doe’s role in the first incident was very unclear, and the second report did not even allege an actual assault. Furthermore, it is well known that sexual abuse can beget sexual abuse. Suggestions that Doe became sexually aggressive after being raped would actually have supported, not contradicted, the testimony of Dr. J.C. and E.P. about the effect of the trauma Doe suffered on his behavior, and the evidence in multiple declarations about the power structure in prison that he was forced to learn, in order to survive. Both experts reported that people who are raped in prison often act out sexually; the fact that such prisoners often attempt to DOE V. AYERS 81 reassert control and protect themselves in this way is widely recognized by scholars,66 by human rights organizations,67 and by Congress.68 We are confident that this evidence, even if it were admissible, would not have substantially weakened the mitigation presentation that J.B. could have – and should have – put on. The added value of a meaningful mitigation presentation would, in Doe’s case, have far outweighed the 66 Robert W. Dumond, Confronting America’s Most Ignored Crime Problem: The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 31 J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry & L. 354, 355 (2003) (“It has been shown that targets of sexual aggression may act out violently themselves, making the transition from victim to aggressor in an effort to avoid further victimization . . . .” (citations omitted)). 67 Human Rights Watch, No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons 89 (Apr. 2001) (“The best and sometimes the only way to avoid the repetition of sexual abuse, many prisoners assert, is to strike back violently. Simply put, to prove that one is not a victim, one must take on the characteristics of a perpetrator.”) 68 Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-79, § 2, 117 Stat. 972, 973–74 (“Prison rape endangers the public safety by making brutalized inmates more likely to commit crimes when they are released . . . . The high incidence of prison rape . . . increases substantially . . . the risk of recidivism, civil strife, and violent crime by individuals who have been brutalized by prison rape.”); 149 Cong. Rec. E758 (daily ed. Apr. 11, 2003) (statement of Rep. Frank R. Wolf) (“Prison rape causes psychological trauma, which may lead its victims to act out in an aggressive manner upon leaving prison, possibly committing further crimes which will result in their reincarceration . . . . Prison rape perpetuates a vicious cycle of violence and trauma which starts with a prisoner being raped and that prisoner often committing acts of aggression and sexual harassment either within prison or in the community upon his release.”). 82 DOE V. AYERS risk of rebuttal.69 We conclude that there is at least a reasonable probability that after considering this mitigating and rebuttal evidence, the jury would have decided that Doe should not be executed.