Opinion ID: 2790291
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Aggravating Evidence at Trial

Text: The aggravating evidence the jury considered was, for a capital case, fairly minimal. Instead of any additional evidence about the murder for which Doe had just been convicted, beyond what was presented during the guilt phase of the trial, a stipulation was read to the jury that said in its entirety that a doctor, if called to testify, would state that “the victim in this case [L.R.] at the time of her death had a mild hemiparesis of the brain as a result of congenital cerebral palsy which entailed a varying but never totally disabling of her impairment in motor coordination and muscular development on her left side only.” 31 As above, we conduct this analysis without affording the extra deference to state court decisions required by Pinholster. There, the Supreme Court explained that pre-AEDPA case law offered no guidance as to post-AEDPA assessments of prejudice, because AEDPA requires doubly deferential review. For the same reason, post-AEDPA cases offer us little guidance here. We apply only the deference required by Strickland, and no second layer of deference. 44 DOE V. AYERS The remainder of the aggravating evidence consisted solely of testimony about two incidents: First, the prosecution called one of two women who were walking together in a park in Doe’s home state when Doe robbed them at gunpoint. The jury learned that Doe, then a juvenile, had grabbed the woman’s arm, pointed a gun at her, and demanded both of their purses. He fled immediately after acquiring them, leaving the women uninjured. A certified copy of Doe’s conviction, showing that he had served five years in prison for this crime, was also introduced. Second, the jury heard testimony about another incident, in which Doe was arrested on suspicion of residential burglary. (No conviction resulted.) Doe – who was homeless at the time – broke into an apartment after its residents left for work and got into bed. When he was found there, by a police officer, he was under the covers, wearing a sweatshirt and sweatpants but no socks or shoes. He initially gave a false last name and said that he had spent the previous night with his girlfriend, who, he said, lived in the apartment. After he was arrested, Doe was allowed to retrieve some of his clothing, which he had hung in the closet. At the police station, Doe admitted that he had entered through the window, but said that he had touched nothing and only wanted to sleep. In fact, it appeared that he had riffled through the kitchen, and moved the TV and VCR away from the wall (a screwdriver was found nearby). A long knife was found on the floor of the bathroom;32 he had neglected to flush the toilet. 32 The two police officers called to testify also mentioned that when they arrived at the apartment, they encountered a man – not Doe – holding a crowbar and guarding the door. Apparently (and confusingly), they seem DOE V. AYERS 45 This penalty-phase aggravating evidence is a far cry from that which the Supreme Court deemed “extensive” in Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1408. There, the state presented evidence that the defendant had “threatened to kill the State’s lead witness, assaulted a man with a straight razor, and kidnapped another person with a knife.” Id. There was also evidence that he “had a history of violent outbursts, including striking and threatening a bailiff after a court proceeding at age 17, breaking his wife’s jaw, resisting arrest by faking seizures, and assaulting and spitting on police officers.” Id. Moreover, the jury in Pinholster heard about the defendant’s involvement in juvenile gangs and his substantial disciplinary record in both county and state jails, where he had threatened, assaulted, and thrown urine at guards, [] fought with other inmates . . . [and] had been segregated for a time due to his propensity for violence and placed on a ‘special disciplinary diet’ reserved only for the most disruptive inmates. Id. Doe’s criminal record – the only aggravating evidence presented by the state at the penalty phase – was light compared to those of many capital defendants; his only previous conviction was for an armed robbery, in which no one was injured, committed when he was a juvenile. When compared with the offenses of other death-eligible defendants, all of which necessarily involve egregious crimes to have left to retrieve the key from management without confronting him; when they returned, this man had disappeared. 46 DOE V. AYERS of violence,33 the facts of the crime Doe committed were also not particularly aggravating;34 notably, although the jury rendered a finding of true on the felony-murder-burglary special-circumstance allegation, it rendered a finding of not true on the felony-murder-rape special-circumstance allegation. We have found prejudice from failure to present mitigating evidence in cases involving crimes substantially more heinous than Doe’s. Correll,35 539 F.3d at 951–55 (holding that the defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to present mitigating evidence despite the fact that he kidnaped three people, bound their hands and feet with duct tape, drove them into the desert, shot one of them in the head execution-style, and watched as a friend of his killed the other two); Ainsworth v. Woodford, 268 F.3d 868, 870–71, 878 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to present mitigating evidence despite the 33 Of course, all murders are, by their very nature, horrific – capital murders even more so. We must view the facts of Doe’s offense, however, in relation to those of other capital murders. It is only in that light that we conclude that his crime was not especially egregious. 34 Additionally, our case law is “clear that the presentation of mitigating evidence is vital even where . . . the aggravating evidence is powerful.” Stankewitz, 365 F.3d at 714 (citing Wiggins, 539 U.S. 510; Williams, 529 U.S. 362). We may find prejudice despite the horrific nature of an underlying crime. See Douglas, 316 F.3d at 1091 (“The gruesome nature of the killing did not necessarily mean the death penalty was unavoidable.”); Smith v. Stewart, 189 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The horrific nature of the crimes involved here does not cause us to find an absence of prejudice.”); Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1044 (“[D]espite . . . substantial evidence of aggravation, . . . the failure . . . to present mitigating evidence rendered the sentencing hearing neither fair nor reliable.”). 35 The facts of the offense are drawn from Correll v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 1404, 1408–09 (9th Cir. 1998). DOE V. AYERS 47 fact that he shot a woman in the hip, raped her as she bled from the gunshot wound, and confined her in her car, at times in the trunk, for twenty-four hours until she bled to death); Hendricks,36 70 F.3d at 1044–45 (holding that the defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to present mitigating evidence despite the fact that he was convicted of murdering two men who had paid him for sex by shooting them to death at point-blank range, and was not charged with murdering three others).