Court Opinion

ID: 9479033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:06:18.400688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:47.092138
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority that there was no infringement of Coleman’s sixth amendment right to an impartial jury and, therefore, concur in part II of the opinion. I also agree with part III to the extent that resentencing Coleman under Montana’s 1977 death penalty statute violated his due process rights. I disagree, however, with part Ill’s statement that “[i]t would be fruitless in this case to require trial counsel to provide a record of how he or she would have handled the case differently.” Maj. op. at 1289. Rather, I would remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the due process violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (Chapman). As the Court recently held in Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986), “while there are some errors to which Chapman does not apply, they are the exception and not the rule....[I]f the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other errors.. .are subject to harmless-error analysis.” Id. at 578-79, 106 S.Ct. at 3106-07 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Under this holding, we should apply this strong presumption in this case. I do not see how the majority has rebutted this strong presumption.
Though brought under the due process clause, Coleman’s argument closely resembles an ex post facto claim. See Maj. op. at 1286. The majority would add this new kind of due process violation to the restricted list of constitutional errors which require per se reversal. Id. at 1288-89. According to the majority, this due process violation had so pervasive an effect on the record that we, as a reviewing court, cannot determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
I agree that the record, in its present state, cannot yield an answer to the harmless error inquiry. In my view, however, the reason for this deficiency lies in the procedural posture of this case and not in the inherent nature of the right violated. The district court entered summary judgment for the State without holding an evi-dentiary hearing. Had it held an evidentia-ry hearing and considered Coleman’s due process claim, the district court could have determined whether the due process violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We then would be in a position to “confidently say, on the whole record, [whether] the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1436, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (Van Arsdall) (emphasis added).
I
Coleman’s alleged prejudice could be evaluated by the district court on remand. The majority recites three specific examples of how Coleman might have been prejudiced. According to the majority, had Coleman’s counsel known that his client would be sentenced under the 1977 statute, he (1) might not have called Coleman to testify, (2) might not have brought in evidence of Coleman’s prior criminal activity in his cross-examination of Nank, and (3) might have challenged the trial judge. Id. at 1289.
I' see no reason why these (and any other) hypotheses cannot be tested in an evi-dentiary hearing. Coleman’s counsel may well testify that, in light of other objectives, he would have called his client to the stand anyway. Even if he would not have called Coleman, it may be that Coleman’s testimony was cumulative or did not contribute to the finding of any aggravating circumstance. If so, Coleman’s testimony may have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As for Coleman’s counsel’s decision to bring in evidence of Coleman’s prior criminal activity, the district court *1300might determine that the prosecutor likely would have submitted this evidence at the sentencing hearing anyway. Given this likelihood, Coleman’s counsel may testify that he still would have elicited this information during Nank’s cross-examination. Finally, there may have been no good reason for Coleman to challenge the trial judge. In short, there is no reason why the examples referred to by the majority could not be tested for harmless error in an evi-dentiary hearing. It may be that the State would fail in its burden of proving harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. Even so, the issue can and should be explored.
The problem here is analogous to that in many cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Such claims are disfavored when brought on direct appeal since “usually [they] cannot be advanced without the development of facts outside the original record.” United States v. Birges, 723 F.2d 666, 670 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 943, 104 S.Ct. 1926, 80 L.Ed.2d 472 (1984) and 469 U.S. 863, 105 S.Ct. 200, 83 L.Ed.2d 131 (1984), citing United States v. Kazni, 576 F.2d 238, 242 (9th Cir.1978). For this reason, ineffective assistance claims are usually brought in habeas proceedings, see United States v. Pope, 841 F.2d 954, 958 (9th Cir.1988), where an evi-dentiary hearing can be used to explore “what counsel did, why it was done, and what, if any, prejudice resulted.” Id. (citation omitted). Similarly, whether the due process violation here was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt can be resolved by inquiring into Coleman’s counsel’s trial decisions at an evidentiary hearing.
Tasco v. Butler, 835 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir.1988), also provides a useful parallel to this case. Tasco allegedly had received no notice of a recidivism charge filed against him under Louisiana’s habitual offender statute until the day of the sentence enhancement hearing. Like Coleman, Tasco’s federal ha-beas petition had been denied without an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 1122. The Fifth Circuit held that this alleged denial of notice would constitute a due process violation. Id. at 1123-24. The court then applied Chapman’s harmless error doctrine to the violation, but concluded that “[t]he record in this case leaves us in doubt concerning whether the due process deprivation affected the outcome of the sentence-enhancement proceeding.” Id. at 1124. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of Tasco’s petition and remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine “when in fact Tasco and his attorney first received notice of the recidivism charges,” and, if the notice was insufficient, “whether the state has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that [Tasco] suffered no prejudice as a result.” Id. Similarly, I would order a remand here.
II
Why, then, should we not remand for an evidentiary hearing? The majority suggests that per se reversal is appropriate. Rather than inquire into the reasons why the record, in its present state, will not yield an answer to the harmless-error inquiry, the majority exempts Coleman’s claim from harmless-error review at all because of the nature of the violation.
I view as distinguishable those cases in which the Supreme Court has excepted particular constitutional errors from harmless-error review because the “scope of the violation ... cannot be discerned from the record, [and therefore] any inquiry into its effect on the outcome of the case would be purely speculative.” Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249, 108 S.Ct. 1792, 1797, 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988) (Satterwhite). The crucial characteristics of these cases appear to be (1) the scope of the violation cannot be determined from the record, and therefore (2) the effect of the violation on the outcome of the case cannot be determined. See id.
The cases usually included in this category are Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978) (Holloway ) (conflict of interest in representation throughout entire proceeding), Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (Gideon) (total deprivation of counsel), and Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927) (Tumey) (biased judge). See Satterwhite, *1301108 S.Ct. at 1797-98; Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 681-82, 106 S.Ct. at 1436-37. Before one can evaluate the differences between Coleman’s due process infringement and the constitutional violations in Holloway, Gideon, and Tumey, however, it is necessary to understand the precise nature of the infringement in this case.
This case involves a novel type of due process claim. In challenging the retroactive application of a sentencing statute that resulted in his being resentenced to death, Coleman essentially is claiming that he was deprived of adequate notice. Maj. op. at 1288. Yet this case differs from Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) (Marks) (fifth amendment due process clause), Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313, 92 S.Ct. 993, 31 L.Ed.2d 258 (1972) (per curiam) (Rabe) (fourteenth amendment due process clause), Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964) (Bouie) (same), and In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948) (Oliver) (same). Those cases hold that the due process clause guarantees the right to fair warning of what conduct or actions are subject to criminal liability. Marks, 430 U.S. at 191, 97 S.Ct. at 992; Bouie, 378 U.S. at 354-55, 84 S.Ct. at 1702-OS (“When a[n] ... unforeseeable state-court construction of a criminal statute is applied retroactively to subject a person to criminal liability for past conduct, the effect is to deprive him of due process of law in the sense of fair warning that his contemplated conduct constitutes a crime.") (emphasis added). Marks, Rabe, Bouie, and Oliver each disallowed the retrospective application of “[a]n unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute.” Marks, 430 U.S. at 192, 97 S.Ct. at 993, quoting Bouie, 378 U.S. at 353, 84 S.Ct. at 1702. Here, by contrast, there is no question that Coleman had adequate notice of the conduct that constituted aggravated kidnapping under Montana law. He also had adequate notice that aggravated kidnapping carried the death penalty under Montana law, though the state’s mandatory provision was later struck down. See Maj. op. at 1282. Coleman’s notice of the resen-tencing procedures was also adequate to prepare for the resentencing hearing itself. See Coleman v. Risley, 839 F.2d 434, 451-54, 460-61 (9th Cir.) (panel opinion), reh. en banc granted, 845 F.2d 884 (9th Cir.1988). Thus, Coleman was deprived of adequate notice only in the following, limited sense: by not knowing that he would ultimately be subject to the 1977 sentencing statute, he did not have adequate notice that his decisions at trial might have an impact on his sentencing under the new scheme. The only reason these trial decisions could possibly prejudice Coleman is the 1977 statute’s directive that the sentencing judge consider any evidence, regardless of its content, which was admitted during the guilt phase. See Mont.Code Ann. § 95-2206.7.
Thus, aside from one exception I will analyze later, Coleman could have been prejudiced by the retrospective application of the sentencing statute only insofar as his lack of notice was actually reflected in the state trial record. That is, only if Coleman’s counsel introduced damaging evidence into the record at trial could lack of notice have prejudiced Coleman at the sentencing hearing. Any trial decision resulting in the failure to introduce beneficial evidence at trial could not possibly have prejudiced Coleman’s sentencing, because such evidence could have been introduced at the sentencing hearing. See id.
Bearing this in mind, I will now apply the Satterwhite analysis to consider whether this type of violation is one (A) whose scope cannot be determined from the record, and therefore (B) which has an effect on the case’s “outcome” that cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. 108 S.Ct. at 1797.
A.
Tumey, Gideon, and Holloway all involve violations whose scope is pervasive and cannot be determined from the record. If a judge is biased as in Tumey, the bias will infect all of the judge's discretionary decisions made at trial. Similarly, the total denial of counsel as in Gideon will result in a record that bears little resemblance to *1302the record which would have been created with representation. In either case, it would be virtually impossible to identify those portions of the record tainted by the violation. Moreover, there are other practical difficulties which these cases present. If a judge is truly biased, it would be fruitless to conduct an evidentiary hearing examining what the judge would have done without the bias. Similarly, where counsel has been denied, it may be impossible to know who the counsel would have been and what effect he or she would have had on the trial.
Holloway presents a slightly different situation, though it too is distinguishable from this case. In Holloway, the Court held that whenever a trial court improperly requires, over timely objection, an attorney to undertake joint representation of code-fendants with conflicting interests, the error requires automatic reversal. 435 U.S. at 489-91, 98 S.Ct. at 1181-82. In so holding, the Court wrote:
In the normal case where a harmless-error rule is applied, the error occurs at trial and its scope is readily identifiable. Accordingly, the reviewing court can undertake with some confidence its relatively narrow task of assessing the likelihood that the error materially affected the deliberations of the jury. But in a case of joint representation of conflicting interests the evil — it bears repeating — is in what the advocate finds himself compelled to refrain from doing, not only at trial but also as to possible pretrial plea negotiations and in the sentencing process. It may be possible in some cases to identify from the record the prejudice resulting from an attorney’s failure to undertake certain trial tasks, but even with a record of the sentencing hearing available it would be difficult to judge intelligently the impact of a conflict on the attorney’s representation of a client. And to assess the impact of a conflict of interests on the attorney’s options, tactics, and decisions in plea negotiations would be virtually impossible.
Id. at 490-91, 98 S.Ct. at 1181-82 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Thus, Holloway turned in part on the fact that the conflict of interest would likely have an effect on unrecorded proceedings, such as plea negotiations. This is simply not the case here. Coleman could only have been prejudiced by the retrospective application of Montana’s sentencing insofar as his lack of notice was actually reflected in the state trial court record.
In a more general sense, the error here had a more circumscribed and discernible impact on the record than the violations in Holloway, Tumey, and Gideon. The set of incentives faced by Coleman’s counsel in the guilt phase roughly corresponded to those presented in the sentencing phase of the later-enacted sentencing scheme. His lack of knowledge regarding the new sentencing procedure could only have prejudiced his client if it resulted in his putting into the record evidence which would have either (1) supported the finding of an aggravating circumstance, or (2) weighed against the finding of a mitigating circumstance. See MontCode Ann. § 95-2206.10. Evidence favorable to Coleman which was omitted by counsel from the trial record could always be submitted later at the sentencing hearing. Thus, the scope of the violation here was more circumscribed and easier to discern from the record.
There is only one exception in which the state trial record would not be adequate: the majority’s contention that Coleman would have challenged the trial judge had he known the trial judge would have the discretion to impose the death penalty. But if Coleman’s counsel had serious doubts about the trial judge’s fairness or impartiality, then he likely would have requested substitution anyway. The majority argues, however, that “[i]t is one thing to accept a judge for the purpose of conducting a fair trial, and quite another to accept that judge ... to become the sole decisionmaker on the question of life or death.” Maj. op. at 1287 (emphasis added). This argument overestimates both the amount of discretion accorded the sentencing judge under Montana law and the willingness of Coleman’s counsel to endure a biased judge for the trial but not the sentencing phase. Furthermore, Coleman *1303himself has never suggested to this court that he would have challenged the trial judge. Rather, this hypothetical scenario is a product of the majority’s quest to conjure up ways in which Coleman might have been harmed. In my view, this contention’s origin provides all the more reason why it should be tested at an evidentia-ry hearing. Such a hearing would supplement the trial record and provide an adequate basis for harmless error analysis of this contention. Just because Coleman’s counsel could have challenged the trial judge without cause, see maj. op. at 1287, 1289, does not necessarily mean that we should automatically assume he would have done so, or that, had he done so, the outcome necessarily would have been different.
B.
It might be argued that where the “outcome” is a death sentence, harmless error analysis is never applicable. The Supreme Court has rejected this view, and has repeatedly applied harmless error analysis to capital sentencing proceedings. E.g., Satterwhite, 108 S.Ct. at 1797-98; Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 399, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 1824, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987) (reversing death sentence because there was constitutional error and state did not show error was harmless); Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 7-9, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 1672-74, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (Skipper) (implicitly rejecting idea in concluding that error was not harmless). In Satterwhite, the Court held that “a reviewing court can make an intelligent judgment about whether the erroneous admission of psychiatric testimony might have affected a capital sentencing jury.” 108 S.Ct. at 1798. By contrast, Skipper evaluated the harmfulness of the exclusion of particular mitigating evidence from the capital sentencing phase. 476 U.S. at 7-8, 106 S.Ct. at 1672-73.
Turning to whether the “outcome” in this case can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe that Montana’s sentencing procedure channels the sentencing judge’s discretion in such a way that a reviewing court can evaluate the effect of Coleman’s due process violation on the sentence imposed. The sentencing determination under Montana law is based on the presence or absence of statutorily defined mitigating and aggravating circumstances. MontCode Ann. §§ 95-2206.8, 95-2206.9. Moreover, if the death penalty is imposed, the sentencing judge must make specific written findings of fact regarding the presence or absence of each of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. MontCode Ann. § 95-2206.11. These findings must be “substantiated by the records of the trial and the sentencing proceeding.” Id. Under this regime, the impact of the error is more readily ascertainable than when the reviewing court must judge the error’s impact on the jury’s final, unexplained decision of guilty or innocent. Similarly, the impact under the Montana capital sentencing procedure is more easily determined than under proceedings in which a jury makes the capital sentencing determination without making specific written findings. See, e.g., Satterwhite, 108 S.Ct. at 1795, 1797-98 (applying harmless error review where capital sentencing jury answers two statutorily prescribed questions); Skipper, 476 U.S. at 2-3, 7-9, 106 S.Ct. at 1669-70, 1672-74 (implicitly applying harmless error review where capital sentencing jury returns final, unexplained decision whether to execute). If harmless error review could be applied under the schemes in Sat-terwhite and Skipper, then a fortiori we could apply it to the Montana procedure.
Moreover, this approach makes sense for one additional reason which is worth pointing out. Treating ex-post-facto-type due process violations as requiring automatic reversal would make little sense in light of ex post facto jurisprudence. Under that body of law, neither a procedural nor an ameliorative change in the law is actionable. Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 292-97, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2297-3009, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977). Here, the change in the Montana law appears to have been both procedural and ameliorative. The determination under the ex post facto clause whether the challenged law is ameliorative is the functional equivalent of a harmless *1304error analysis. Thus, under the ex post facto clause, as part of the inquiry into whether the right has been violated, courts examine whether the claimant was disadvantaged or harmed by the change in law. See 3 W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 26.6 at 59 (1988 Supp.) (describing category of cases “characterized by a finding of prejudicial impact in the determination that there was a constitutional violation” and stating that “[w]here a court has made such a finding ... (as where it concludes that counsel’s representation was ineffective under the Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)] standard, or that nondisclosed exculpatory evidence was material under the [United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)] standard), then there is no reason to superimpose the Chapman standard to determine whether a new trial is necessary”). To allow litigants to repackage their ex post facto challenges to ameliorative laws as due process claims requiring per se reversal would in effect eliminate a significant limitation in ex post facto doctrine.
Ill
For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that the due process violation in this case is subject to harmless error analysis. I express no opinion whether the error was in fact harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. I would remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.