Court Opinion

ID: 9816586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 03:21:55.900574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:25.016031
License: Public Domain

HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring dzibitante.
I concur in the well-written opinion of the panel, although I have reservations about one aspect of our decision.
I agree fully with the panel’s handling of the issues raised by appellant Wainwright in *1235his appeal. Judge Eisele gave all of Wainwright’s claims a very thorough airing and I am satisfied that he did not err in rejecting them.
I am troubled, however, by our decision to reverse on the one issue — the prosecutor’s attempts to link Wainwright to gang membership not supported by any evidence — as to which he granted habeas relief. Judge Eisele, a very well-qualified and experienced trial judge, conducted a searching inquiry as to all of Wainwright’s claims of error. He heard testimony and had an opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses first hand. Judge Eisele then wrote a 96-page opinion explaining in detail his reasoning for denying most of the claims but granting Wainwright a new sentencing hearing because of the prosecutor’s improper references to gangs. His determination that the prosecutor’s questions tainted the jury is one that I believe we ordinarily should respect. Moreover, the record is clear that the prosecutor was intentionally trying to inject the gang issue into the case and as both Judge Eisele and this court have found, this was improper. Such prosecutorial misbehavior I am reluctant to accept.
I have nonetheless decided to concur, with reservations, because the evidence against Wainwright was great and I cannot say, on balance, that the sentencing proceeding was fundamentally unfair.