Legal Document

523 U.S. 538118 S.Ct. 1489140 L.Ed.2d 728 Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Petitioner,v.Thomas THOMPSON. No. 97-215. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 9, 1997. Decided April 29, 1998. Syllabus * In 1983, respondent Thompson was convicted rape and murder sentenced to death in a California state court. The special circumstance during commission made him eligible for penalty. ruling on his first federal habeas petition 1995, District Court, inter alia, granted relief conviction circumstance, thus invalidating sentence. A Ninth Circuit panel reversed grant June 1996, it denied Thompson's rehearing suggestion hearing en banc March June, certiorari denied, issued mandate denying all relief. State then set an August execution date, fourth petition. Two days before execution, however, recalled its sua sponte, based claims evidence presented court had delayed action interests comity until conclusion proceeding. It asserted because procedural misunderstandings at prevented from calling review issued, original panel's decision would lead miscarriage justice. granting relief, found that effective assistance counsel trial by attorney's failure contest conclusions State's forensic expert impeach credibility two jailhouse informants. Held: 1.The courts appeals' inherent power recall their mandates, subject abuse discretion, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 463 1323, 1324, 104 7, 8-9, 77 1426 (REHNQUIST, J., chambers), is last resort, be held reserve against grave, unforeseen circumstances. Circuit's rests most doubtful grounds. Even if process somehow malfunctioned, compounded error delaying further more than four months after alleged occurred. promptness with which acts correct mistakes adequacy grounds reopening case. Here, just scheduled judgment State, not mention this placed heavy reliance. no answer assert when considered only Court's interest resolving vital California's executive branch. Pp. ____-____. 2.The consistent letter Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), sets limits successive applications. Since court's specific recitation acted exclusive basis disproved consideration matters later filing, deemed have first, rather successive, application. Although AEDPA's terms do govern case, appeals must exercise discretion manner objects statute and, guided general principles underlying jurisprudence. 3.The grave discretion. (a) " [T]he profound societal costs attend jurisdiction,'' Smith Murray, 477 527, 539, 106 2661, 2668, 91 434, make necessary impose significant courts' These reflect enduring respect "the finality convictions survived direct [state-court] review.'' Brecht Abrahamson, 507 619, 635, 113 1710, 1720, 123 353. Finality essential criminal law's retributive deterrent functions, enhances quality judging. also serves preserve balance, "a [State's power] pass laws means little cannot enforce them.'' McCleskey Zant, 499 467, 491, 111 1454, 1469, 517. are compelling issues Only assurance real can execute moral victims crime move forward knowing will carried out. Unsettling these expectations inflicts injury "powerful legitimate punishing guilty,'' Herrera Collins, 506 390, 421, 853, 871, 122 203 (O'CONNOR, concurring), shared alike. circumstances, prisoner has already extensive courts. absence strong showing actual innocence, outweigh prisoner's obtaining yet another opportunity review. (b) Unless avoid justice as defined jurisprudence, abuses sponte recalls revisit merits earlier prisoner. This standard altogether central concern concluded proceedings revisited innocence showing. rules applicable cases where ensure practice limited rare extraordinary Moreover, like other standards, rule objective content, well case law, familiar McCleskey, U.S., 496, S.Ct., 1471. P. ____. (c) met concerned compared legal innocence. Sawyer Whitley, 505 333, 339, 112 2514, 2518-19, 120 269. To credible, claim reliable trial. Schlup Delo, 513 298, 324, 115 851, 865-66, 130 808. petitioner asserting show "it likely reasonable juror light new evidence'' Id., 327, 867. capital challenging sentence particular "by clear convincing penalty evidence. Sawyer, supra, 348, 2523. fail under either standard. record governs claim. He presents undermine prosecution ample he committed rape, own testimony-riddled inconsistencies falsehoods-was devastating. Neither additional informants nor pathologist's testimony disputing opinions witnesses meets "more not'' vacate stand-alone conviction, much less "clear convincing'' There finding. F.3d 1045, remanded. KENNEDY, delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, SCALIA, THOMAS, JJ., joined. SOUTER, filed dissenting opinion, STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER, Holly D. Wilkens, San Diego, CA, petitioner. Gregory A. Long, Los Angeles, respondent. Justice KENNEDY Court. 1 Thomas M. Ginger Fleischli. More 15 years crime, 13 7 Appeals writ corpus. Appeals, sitting banc, Thompson. issues: First, whether Appeals' order recalling violated 28 U.S.C.A. §2244(b) (Supp.1997), amended Pub.L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217; second, controlled precise AEDPA, but does save order, which, we hold, 2 3 20-year old victim, Fleischli, summer 1981. Fleischli Laguna Beach studio apartment David Leitch, whom she intermittent sexual relationship. year, moved out in. took up residence Tracy former wife Leitch. 4 On September 11, 1981, about 7:30 p.m., Leitch encountered pizza parlor. told afraid might kill her were left alone him. group went bar together, soon departed. At 9:30 Afshin Kashani joined drinking both them smoking hashish trio second walking around a.m. a.m., gone nearby liquor store buy soda, wanted intercourse night. assured Kashani, could "have'' Thailand smuggle refugees drugs back States. App. 7. 5 Before returned apartment, began truck, seems been local bar. way, realized forgotten cigarettes. door. appeared nervous wait outside while retrieved After returning looked finding her, home. 6 visited morning 12, asking was. Lying, said Sandpiper Inn night before. party evening, again asked response, described past tense, saying liked her. next day, missing person's report police department. 14, Fleischli's body buried field 10 miles wrapped rope sleeping bag blanket, taken apartment. head duct tape, towels, sheet, jacket. She stabbed five times near right ear. bruised ankles, palms, wrist; wrist crushed. shirt bra cut down middle pulled elbows, restraining arms exposing breasts. unbuttoned jeans, underwear, shoes, or socks. vaginal swab revealed semen blood type. 8 Police footprints body, one smooth wavy pattern matching shoe worn Fibers blanket identical fibers trunk Leitch's car. smeared paint car's trunk. Other matched carpet stained blood. 9 day Mexico. States, Mexican authorities arrested 26, handcuffs When questioned return claimed murder. head, though information public. sex they engaged consensual sex. We recount lengthy history B 11 November 4, Orange County Superior jury first-degree forcible homicide Lorraine intentional killing personally defendant Martin Thompson.'' 45 Cal.3d 86, 117, n. 23, 246 Cal.Rptr. 245, 753 P.2d 37, 56, 23 (1988). making phase unanimous recommending sentence, judge imposed. trial, different guilty second-degree role slaying. 12 28, 1988, unanimously affirmed jury's circumstance. seven justices dissenting. dissenters concurred affirmance sentencing recommendation influenced improper solicited 144-145, P.2d, 74-75. petitioned rehearing, 1988. denied. 488 960, 109 404, 102 392 petition, 1989. January 1990. abeyance pursued unexhausted 1991, February 1993, third 14 Central evidentiary raised dated conviction. view, attorney rendered ineffective charge. cited failings attorney. held, failed certain offered Second, determined, should impeached greater extent did. prejudiced Strickland Washington, 466 668, 2052, 80 674 (1984). Having ruled invalid. As rejected what between prosecution's theories read transcripts trials, trials differed mainly emphasis.'' 71. timing critical now resolve. 19, three-judge denial reinstated Noting [t]he rape'' 1358, 1365 (1997), that, irrespective performance deficient alleged, demonstrate prejudice Strickland. 16 5, circulated "each active judge'' See General Orders 5.4(a)(1), p. 30 (Aug. 1997). 6, 1997, suggestion, observing full advised service requested vote rehear matter banc.'' 137. same reissued minor changes. 2, 520 ----, 117 2426, 138 188. 17 July 3, it, stated parole witnessed 16, 18 22, motion following pursuant Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(b). support motions, statement seen 19 60(b) 25, construed U.S.C. §2244 "must permitted utilize end-run requirements'' AEDPA. 170. observed conflicted account specifics encounter physical previous stories himself. Thus, "certainly requisite actually innocent such justice.'' 20 later, voted consider "to our result fundamental 1042, 1043. oral argument question 1, execution. 21 Meanwhile, Governor clemency addition arguments attorneys hearing, reviewed materials submitted [Thompson's] behalf, letters signed supporters clemency, submissions Attorney, concerning clemency,'' provided [him] Board Prison Terms.'' Brief Criminal Legal Foundation Amicus Curiae 2a-3a (Decision Pete Wilson). comprehensive 31, "ha[d] remotely approached any'' 16a. agreed view who presided over absolute tragedy travesty even seriously case.'' Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Clemency 22 executed, divided came 53 almost year banc. did recall, so said, "recall predicated any raises mandate.'' 1049, 3. sooner, chosen taking action. bases mandate. absent "procedural within [the] court,'' called issuing 1047. included mishandled law clerk transition judge's chambers notice 1067 (Kozinski, dissenting). "would 1048. 24 address charge defendant's prejudice. plurality ground inconsistent majority effort determine nonetheless vacated "remand[ed] [the Court's] initial vacatur conviction.'' 1060. murder, directed "enter partial unless elects retry time.'' 25 Four judges dissented. Judge Hall argued majority's allowed evade restrictions petitions. 1064-1066. Kozinski detailed circumstances led find malfunctioned. contrary conclusion, "operated it's supposed to.'' 1067. Kleinfeld recited detail guilt rape. 1073. 26 Within hours mandate, mandamus, certiorari. 521 118 1037 reverse. II 27 some Justices expressed doubt point, see, e.g., Ohio Power Co., 353 98, 102-103, 652, 654-655, 683 (1957) (Harlan, dissenting), recognized (1983) chambers); see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. Hartford-Empire 322 238, 249-250, 64 997, 1002-1003, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944). repose'' attaching appeals, exercised C. Wright, Miller, & E. Cooper, Practice §3938, 712 (2d ed.1996). sparing use demonstrates contingencies. justified because, [b]ut court, call upon ordinary F.3d, noted earlier, 1996. 17, notified intention reject suggestion. revisions although time specified Circuit. 29 appears Kozinski's events transpired. off-panel wrote panel, requesting belated "circulated shortly transition'' chambers, clerks assigned communicate.'' (dissenting opinion). Another seconded request asked: "Was banc] circulated? Did I miss it?'' author call, explaining id., 1067-1068, itself every stayed issuance pending According majority, [a] thereafter, spread district court.'' 1049. [I]n comity,'' 1997-two executed-that 31 Measured standards application, proposed constitute slightest setting aside "deep rooted policy favor repose judgments.'' 244, 1000. especially true consequence oversights contribute views determination given 32 malfunction-which open question, dissenting) (" operated to'')-the place. point remained free "request [full] suspend'' voting 11.11, 83. They chose so, instead waiting was, effect, request. practical purposes lay certiorari, firm date Thompson, conducted exhaustive Then, 33 comity. Comity judicial branch government. government reliance Rather focus considering (and, predicted, meritless) 34 rarest negligence expressing sufficient frustrate million persons enforcing final favor. implicating concerns finality, doubts actions Appeals. III 35 seeks entered decide proper measure statutory jurisprudential corpus cases. 36 argues barred (Supp.1997) Section 2244(b)(1) provides: "A application section 2254 prior shall dismissed.'' Subsection 2244(b)(2) dismissed'' narrow exception applies. immediate "second application'' 37 §2254 regarded §2244(b). Otherwise, petitioners relitigation §2244(b)(1), litigation §2244(b)(2). If grants motion, AEDPA (in §2244(b)(1) apply) ones §2244(b)(2) apply). 38 textual matter, applies "application.'' carries implications pending, initiative. Whether depends If, considers regard cases, characterizes sponte. 39 reciting characterization not, course, prove point; filings, But filing. Thus deem one. result, contravene 40 statute. moreover, those applied 41 434 (1986), See, 487, 1466, 517 (1991) (limiting entertain abusive petitions''); Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 90-91, 97 2497, 2508-2509, 594 (1977) procedurally defaulted claims); Teague Lane, 489 288, 308-310, 1060, 1074-1075, 103 334 (1989) (plurality J.) give retroactive "new rules'' cases); 637-638, 1721-1722, (1993) "trial error''). 42 system.'' 1720; accord, Wood Bartholomew, 516 8, 116 133 (1995) (per curiam); 338, 2517-2518, 269 (1992); Keeney Tamayo-Reyes, 504 1715, 1718-1719, 318 491-492, 1468-1469; Teague, 309, 1074-1075; Murray Carrier, 478, 2639, 2644-2645, 397 (1986); Engle Isaac, 456 107, 127, 1558, 1571-1572, 71 783 (1982). functions law. "Neither punishment vindicated known.'' 1468-1469. "Without deprived effect.'' 1074. 43 perhaps "nothing subversive sense responsibility, inner subjective conscientiousness part difficult subtle art judging well, indiscriminate acceptance notion shots always someone else.'' Bator, Law Habeas Corpus Prisoners, 76 Harv. L.Rev. 441, 451 (1963). 44 balance. frustrates ""both States' sovereign punish offenders good-faith attempts honor constitutional rights.''' 2645 (quoting Engle, 128, 1572). "Our system recognizes independent articulate norms through law; 1469. having likelihood borne review,'' 490-491, entitled finality. run course acquires added dimension. generally Payne Tennessee, 501 808, 2597, 720 (1991). unsettle inflict 46 illustrates associated By vindicate enacted legislature California, recommended executed; imposed death; occasions refused disturb collateral attack; public decision, determined just. Relying invoked entire authority executing judgment. Yet, mere severe 47 deal clerical errors itself, similar 60(a). interest, grounds, preserving accordance fraud into very legitimacy Nor Appellate disposition 48 Rather, where, here, paramount, without predicates misunderstanding irregularity occurring decision. "actua[l] innocen[ce],'' 2649-2650, 49 Based considerations, hold prisoner, accommodates need allow remedy injustice recognizing ""sovereign offenders.''' 1469 2645). 50 comports values __, provisions inform consideration'' abused Felker Turpin, 518 651, 663, 2333, 2339, 135 827 (1996). 2244(b) grounded judgments. With §2244(b)(2)(A), shows, among things, facts establish §2244(b)(2)(B). adopt today somewhat lenient §2244(b)(2)(B)(i) (factual predicate "not discover[able] previously due diligence''). consistent, And, __-__, 51 Like [w]ell-defined law,'' "familiar courts.'' indeed apply 194 (Order 30, 1997) ("The justice''). Hence ""a sound workable channeling courts.''' 1471 497, 2650). 52 C innocence.'' 2519. often emphasized scope'' exception. 340, 2519; Harris Reed, 255, 271, 1038, 1048, 308 concurring) ("narrow exception'' "extraordinary case' ''). "To credible,'' 866, 808 (1995). Given rarity evidence, ""in virtually allegation summarily rejected.''' 54 demanding scope nature challenge brought asserts hand, challenges particular, 55 broader apparent. explained Schlup, element "function[s] essentially enhancer,'' 326, 866-867. contests rendering penalty, applies, elements offense or, enhancers. 56 present difficulty Sawyer. makes appreciable Instead, challenges, standard; latter theory, then, possible let stand death. anomaly reflects tension later-decided Schlup. detain us, 57 109. addition, there restraint Dr. Robert Richards, pathologist performed autopsy testified death, suffered crushing surrounding bruising. 9. Deputy Darryl Coder, enforcement officer "hundreds'' handcuff injuries, injuries caused handcuffs, pair possession 13, Richards bruises elbow, wrist, Record 1619. breasts arms. mouth gagged tape. 1505, 1772. 58 dissent, "Fleischli murdered fate frequent friendly partners.'' informants, discredited substantial confessed (as murder) them. 59 observed, "was devastating defense.'' 51. Contrary emphatic advice counsel, testify. accounts disaster got admit lied arrest, admitted whereabouts telling Kashani. lie, replied, "Mr. seemed candidate anybody 2378. recent, fantastic, fell asleep while, six feet away, else jacket, bag, rope, scrubbed remove riddled outright falsehoods.'' stated, "Thompson's affected verdict.'' beyond dispute; since material aspect good reason believe consensual. 60 Had __. demonstrated 61 falls categories. Fink Del Frate, Fink, Fink's informant favors Fink. statements officials effect unreliable witness. members Frate's family Frate dishonest, jail cell meeting tracked newspaper neglected grand theft distribution hallucinogens license. 62 impeachment provides step removed pertaining itself. 2523-2524. tends Frate. probability altered outcome assume, apart informant's testimony; accepted informants' reservation. assumption belied above. introduce. 63 evidence: felony spent total prison used heroin preceding including period gave police. identity routine. numerous occasions, occasion informed inmate gain protective custody prison. received transfer penal facility exchange And being unable explain why criminals frequency. served degree credit card forgery. faced charges California. claiming murderer changing confession times. impeaching each informant, disrespect still reached verdict. 65 Irving Root, behalf Root disputed Coder disagreed Coder's handcuffs. unlike corpses. Tr. 52-54, 62-63 offer alternative explanation how caused. Richards' regarding body. opined ankles least 47-50. palms lividity, i.e., settling gravity 48. Third, "infrequent'' sperm 63. suggested low count male, douching drainage intercourse. possibility drainage. 63-64. opine probable remaining possibilities. Finally, summarized agreeing "there remarkably way trauma decedent's body.'' 52. 66 Root's disturbing findings His far compelling, experience (albeit living persons) plausible. Unlike examination examination. 70. improbable, witness noticed condition infrequent swab, himself cause assessment overall large For instance, tearing bruising indicated (and dispute) 1629. acknowledged, "remarkably little'' lifted verbatim 67 say testimony, ignore totality guilt. do. 68 meet holding contrary. V 69 reversed, remanded instructions reinstate 70 ordered. BREYER join, 72 accept representation acting position supported record. respondent's seek whatever advantage obtain newly discovered ultimately nothing 73 my integrity appellate process, regret. initiate 1358(C.A.9), cert. 188 take systems. accordingly refrained adjudicated postconviction claim, undertaken consequence, motivated look hope decisionmaker obviate advertise corrective 74 unfortunate Appeals's may been, reverses rehearing. rejecting erroneous respectfully dissent mistaken conclusion. 75 begin longstanding power, ante, ---- (citing (1944)), discuss distinct suppose criterion merely discretionary act instance. true, variety subjects requires caution synthesizing Friendly, Indiscretion About Discretion, Emory L.J. 747, 762-764 (1982); Rosenberg, Judicial Discretion Trial Viewed From Above, Syracuse 650-653 (1971). least, high deference exercising hallmark Electric Joiner, 522 ---------, 512, 517-519, 139 508 (1997); National Hockey League Metropolitan Club, Inc., 427 639, 642, 96 2778, 2780-2781, 747 (1976) curiam). one, accorded selection factors relevant (since criteria become standardized), Criden, 648 F.2d 814, 818 (C.A.3 1981), weighing facts, Lawson Prods., Inc. Avnet, 782 1429, 1437 (C.A.7 1986); S. Childress Davis, Standards Review §4.21, 4-163 ("It run-of-the-mill calls, differently context, factors, many level boils clearly rule. proposition, closer test irrationality''); cf. Citizens Preserve Overton Park, Volpe, 401 402, 416, 823, 136 (1971) (explaining §706(2)(A), agencies choices "arbitrary, capricious, otherwise law'') ("To th[e] [required §706(2)(A)] judgment.''). obligation underscored here fact administration Courts careful intrusion, Western Pacific Railroad Corp. 345 247, 259, 656, 662, 986 (1953). wholly appropriate, justification extreme care counter malfunction mechanisms constitutionally imposition Indeed, serious validity considerations goes employing rehearings settled 1069-1070 (C.A.9 however effectively function arguably astray surely resort correction standing life is, all, axiomatic devote correction, purpose warranted. Kyles 514 419, 422, 1555, 1560, 131 490 (1995); 455, 1576 (STEVENS, concurring). sure, lurks background faint specters overuse misuse power. All agree reserved "exceptional circumstances,'' 1048; 716-717, (1996) various sparingly), stable adjudication administrative efficiency, growing caseloads place premium. agree, too, mandates condoned mechanism limitations petitions, §2244(b).1 overused respect, unreasonable simply deter too stand, fears circumscribe response concerns. us optimistic, issue. 78 Going reasonableness invoking points. arises causing saw threatened permitting ineligible failures unanimous. Such math. anyone ever sat bench knows influence other, One something others look. So mistakenly result. 79 policies thinking prejudicial meaning 693-694, 2067-2068, issue here. reasonably thought mistaken, suffice yes question. Calderon, Civ. 89-3630-RG (CD Cal., Mar. 1995), reprinted 14-16. ultimate merit touchstone review, League, 2780-2781 (under reviewing result), abuse, (the warranting review).2 adhere terminology reversing "informed by'' amendments 1217, (1996), recognition. That aside, reformulation unwarranted 81 Why anything traditional unexplained opinion. me, accepts covertly allowing litigate petition; assumes reconsideration Ante, assumptions, us. Nothing speaks such, long enable prisoners forbidden successive'' §2244(b), violated. 82 embodied today's novelty. dismissed. bear analogy covered subsection (b)(1), panel. draw dismiss basis. (b)(2) presented, dismissed undiscoverable factfinder convicted, error, again, fails analogy, resemble mentioned (b)(2), presumably require today. fact, __; realizes, dealing proof, 867, (1995), satisfied demonstration trial,'' discovered, discoverable unknown, back. 83 Whatever pursuing, face occasioned inadvertence awkwardly corrected; impressions, neither want finesse warrant jettison flexible sake solving systemic problem exist. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. recognize subsequent analogous constraints ("AEDPA''). Nevius Sumner, 105 453, 461 1996). Abuse sanctions frivolous filings. defer justification. Cooter Gell Hartmarx Corp., 496 384, 401-405, 2447, 2458-2461, 359 (1990). justify similarly preliminary analysis misapplication standard, addressing merits, error.

Classification Label: 0