Habeas Corpus Blog

Extending Martinez

By JK

Let’s turn the lights back on around here. . .

Recently, the Supreme Court granted cert. on a really interesting habeas issue:  whether Martinez extends to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims.  Case is called Davila v. Davis.  SCOTUSblog page here.

Let’s start with a Martinez refresher: in 2012, the Supreme Court held in Martinez v. Ryan that the ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel can represent cause to overcome a procedural default on an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.  In other words, a petitioner can argue that his post-conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise or properly litigate a trial counsel ineffectiveness argument.  If he can establish that, then he can obtain federal review of the trial counsel ineffectiveness claim (I am going to use IAC from here on out, it’s a lot of words to keep spelling out).

That’s the law now for trial IAC claims.  But what about appellate IAC claims?  Does the reasoning of Martinez extend to those types of claims?

I am going to steal this clever framing from a colleague, but in some ways it boils down to this: It’s the Ninth Circuit vs. the rest of the country on this one.  The Ninth Circuit in a case called Nguyen v. Curry held that Martinez extends to these types of claims.  Every other court has said no. 

Based on the infamy of the Ninth Circuit, one may think that it is the kiss of death for the habeas petitioner to have the Ninth Circuit on his side.  But I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion so quick here.  The Ninth Circuit is not always wrong when it issues a pro-habeas petitioner interpretation on a procedural issue.*  That is not inconsistent with recent Supreme Court law, as the Court has actually been relatively generous in expanding habeas procedural issues under the Roberts Court (e.g. Martinez, Maples, McQuiggin). Ironically, Martinez was out of the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit for failing to rule in favor of the habeas petitioner.

*Of course, they do still get reversed on their pro-habeas petitioner procedural rulings as well.  This decision from last term is a good example.

Here’s why the petitioner could win.  The logic of Martinez supports its extension to IAC appellate claims looked at in broad terms.  One of the main motivating factors underlying Martinez was that the initial post-conviction review proceeding was the exclusive forum in which a petitioner was allowed to raise IAC trial claims.  A petitioner should be provided with an attorney to assist him with raising that type of constitutional claim.  Just like IAC trial claims, the initial review collateral proceeding is the first opportunity for a petitioner to raise an IAC appellate counsel claim.  Significantly, Justice Scalia in his dissent in Martinez acknowledged that the holding of Martinez would obviously apply to IAC appellate counsel claims.  He went so far as saying that the majority’s assurance that the holding was limited to the issues before it “insults the reader’s intelligence.”

But let me also advocate for the devil here.**  Is there something different between these two types of claims?  There is an argument to be made that there is.  As Justice Kennedy reasoned in Martinez, IAC trial claims often require investigation into matters outside the trial record.  Something that a habeas petitioner cannot do while incarcerated.  But appellate counsel claims don’t require that type of investigation.  Appellate issues are based exclusively on the lower court record.  Outside of having legal experience, wisdom, and skill, habeas petitioners do in theory have the issues at their disposal while incarcerated (assuming they have the trial record with them).

** No, I obviously do not believe the State is the devil.  It’s a play on words on the expression “playing devil’s advocate.” [Insert winky face emoticon here]

But I don’t find that reasoning particularly persuasive.  As I imply in that final sentence, habeas petitioners are not in a good position to raise these claims.  They don’t generally have the legal ability to identify appellate issues.  They are incarcerated.  They don’t have a lot of access to legal materials.  They don’t often have complete records from their trial.  Yet, criminal defendants have the constitutional right to the effective assistance of appellate counsel (yes, spelled it out there, but it seemed appropriate).  These claims can only be brought in the initial review collateral proceeding.  Representation by counsel in those proceedings to raise a violation of a guaranteed constitutional right seems pretty vital to me.

Martinez was 7 to 2.  If the court remains at 8, it will take a shift of four members of the majority for the Court to reject the Martinez extension.  But I guess it is more complicated than that.  If the habeas petitioner loses three, then it is 4 to 4.  The individual petitioner will lose in that situation, but at least petitioners in the Ninth Circuit would still be happy.  And the issue would remain undecided.  

If the Court gets back up to 9, the numbers game would change a little.  Assuming the new judge votes like Scalia, that will add another judge to the anti-Martinez extension crew.  In that situation, a three-judge shift will mean a lose for all habeas petitioners.

So it really boils down to whether the habeas petitioner will lose all of Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito.  Only needs to hold on to one for the win here.*

* Yes, I am assuming Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor are reliable votes here. 

If you want to read more about this, I enjoyed this write up about the case.

Habeas Corpus – Rhines Stays

By JK

It is my policy to not discuss any of my cases on this blog.  I also try not to discuss any cases in which the petitioner is being represented by someone in my office. 

But I want to briefly violate that policy and mention the Ninth Circuit’s decision from last week in Blake v. Baker.*  In the first case ever to address this issue, the Ninth Circuit concluded that ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, i.e. a Martinez argument, can establish good cause to justify a Rhines stay and abeyance to allow a petitioner to present an unexhausted claim to state court.

* To note, I did not work on this case at all.  The petitioner is represented by members of the Capital Habeas Unit in my office.  I am in the Non-Capital Unit.

Rather than talk about the specifics of Blake, I’ll just briefly mention what this means generally.*  A petitioner files a petition with both exhausted and unexhausted claims.  This is what’s known as a mixed petition.  A federal court is required to dismiss a mixed petition without prejudice.   Unfortunately, if the petition gets dismissed, even without prejudice, then the case is over.  It is much more likely than not that any attempt by petitioner to resuscitate the petition in federal court after exhausting the unexhausted claims in state court will be outside the one-year statute of limitations.  This leaves the petitioner with few choices.  He can either dismiss the unexhausted claims and solely proceed on the exhausted ones.  Or he can move for a stay and abeyance, known as a Rhines stay (because it was created in a case called Rhines v. Weber).  To obtain a stay, a petitioner must show, among other things, good cause for failing to exhaust the claim previously.

* Actually, I have talked about all of this before.  And in more detail.  But it can't hurt to cover it again.

Blake now establishes that a Martinez argument can establish good cause to justify a stay.  Great decision for habeas petitioners.

But there is a likely reason why the decision in Blake is the first of its kind.  A stay typically isn’t necessary for a Martinez argument.  Rather, the typical situation is more like that in Dickens v. Ryan.  A petitioner raises an unexhausted ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.  There is absolutely no doubt that the state court would find the claim procedurally defaulted because it was not raised previously.  Thus, a return to state court is futile.  In such a situation, the unexhausted claim is “technically” exhausted.  A technically exhausted claim does not get addressed on the merits in federal court.  Rather, the claim is considered procedurally defaulted.  In other words, the federal courts just acknowledge an “anticipatory” default on that claim.  Because the claim is procedurally defaulted, the petitioner is required to show cause and prejudice to overcome the default.  At that point, the petitioner raises the Martinez argument.  In most situations, the federal court will just jump to this step, rather than force the petitioner to go back to state court to obtain the inevitable procedural default first.  That’s what happened in Dickens.

But that’s not what happens here in Nevada.  The district court here makes the petitioner go back to state court to get the procedural default.  The court’s justification for this is that Nevada “allows” second or successive habeas petitions if the petitioner can show “good cause” and prejudice.  So essentially, the district courts here believe that because Nevada has a similar cause/prejudice structure, the petitioner should be required to first present that cause and prejudice to the state court before it gets presented to the federal court.  If there is cause and prejudice, the state court will get the chance to address the merits of the claim in the first instance. 

Personally, I disagree with this.  I don’t think it’s consistent with Supreme Court authority on the issue (such as Harris v. Reed, or at least O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Harris).  But it’s an interesting debate that I am going to have to face repeatedly in my cases.   

Nevertheless, Nevada is most likely not the only State with unusual post-conviction rules.  For those States where the federal courts do believe that a return to state court is necessary, then Blake will provide tremendous assistance to those petitioners.

Habeas Corpus - En Banc Entertainment

By JK

Hello again internet universe.

The Ninth Circuit’s fascinating work in its recent en banc cases has inspired me to jump back into the blogosphere and share some news/thoughts about those recent cases.

Let’s start with some news.  Last year, I wrote about the en banc decision in Sessoms.  Briefly, in a close 6-5 en banc opinion, the Ninth Circuit granted habeas relief on the ground that the petitioner had invoked his right to counsel at the beginning of an interrogation.  The Supreme Court GVR’d it based on Salinas v. Texas.  I found that surprising as Salinas really had nothing to do with the issue in Sessoms.  The biggest wrinkle for Sessoms after the remand was that the author of the 6-5 opinion, the legendary Betty Fletcher, has passed away.  She has been replaced with McKeown. 

The case has now been scheduled for a new en banc argument.  This is going to happen next Tuesday, March 18 at 10:00 a.m. in San Francisco.  You can watch it live through the Ninth Circuit’s website.*

*A long, long time ago, I spent a great deal of time comparing the different websites of the circuit courts (I had done it for all of the New York federal district courts).  It was actually sort of related to work (at least that’s what I told myself), but mostly I just enjoy wasting time on the internet.  The Ninth Circuit had far-and-away-not-even-close the best website.  I am not just saying that because I practice in that court now.  It’s just really well done – easy to navigate, well-organized, nice to look at, has a ton of great info.  It makes me happy to visit it on a daily basis.  A nice perk of this job as now I actually get to say it’s work related!

Speaking of Sessoms, I was recently told about a supremely entertaining article about the case called “Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of the Pointless Remand,” written by Professor James Duane.  Click the following link to read it: Download Duane article.  Totally worth the time.  The entire article is written as a conversation between Holmes and Watson.  The premise is that the “pointless” GVR in Sessoms points to a larger truth – the Supreme Court intends to summarily reverse Sessoms once it gets back in front of them. 

Sessoms is far from the only en banc habeas action in the Ninth Circuit.  Late last year and earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit issued two, count ‘em two, en banc opinions interpreting Martinez v. Ryan.  And each one, like Sessoms, has a really unique wrinkle.

The first was Detrich v. Ryan.  Detrich was a highly splintered opinion with no true majority opinion.  There was a main opinion, two concurring opinions, and a dissenting opinion.  What was called the main opinion was written by Judge William Fletcher.  Judge Fletcher broke down Martinez and explained what the standard of review should be when reviewing a Martinez claim.  Essentially, what does cause and prejudice mean when a petitioner relies upon ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel to overcome a procedural default?  Even for a habeas-lover like me, it’s a pretty gnarly opinion.  There’s multiple layers of deficient performance analysis stacked on top of “but for” causations, that it’s a real challenge to follow.  And what makes it even harder to follow is that it was not really presented in a true majority opinion.  So the wrinkled question after Detrich was, does Judge Fletcher’s opinion, which was not joined by a majority of the en banc panel, now set forth the proper analysis for Martinez claims in the Ninth Circuit? 

The Ninth Circuit answered that question last week in a case called Claibourne v. Ryan.  Using a novel approach for the Ninth Circuit (which it adopted from other circuits), the court simply counted votes on the relevant issues, including the dissent votes, to see what conclusion got the most number of votes. 

It came out like this.  Two good results for habeas petitioners, one bad one: 

(1) where it is necessary to consider whether a procedural default should be excused under Martinez in a case where the district court’s holding that there had been a procedural default preceded Martinez, and the result is uncertain, we should remand the matter to the district court to let it to conduct such a review in the first instance, if the result is uncertain.   Good result.

(2) to demonstrate “cause” – the first part of the showing of “cause and prejudice” required in order to excuse a procedural default under Coleman – the petitioner must show that his post-conviction relief counsel was ineffective under Strickland.  This is the bad one and is different from what Fletcher wrote in the main opinion in Detrich.  What this one means is that a petitioner must show that post-conviction's counsel was defective and that the outcome of the post-conviction proceedings would have been different.

(3) “prejudice” for purposes of the Coleman “cause and prejudice” analysis in the Martinez context requires only a showing that the trial-level ineffective assistance of counsel claim was “substantial.”  Good result.

The other Martinez en banc opinion was Dickens v. Ryan.  That case didn’t spend too much time on the Martinez standard, but instead focused on when a petitioner can use Martinez to overcome a procedural default.  It boiled down to this: if a petitioner presents new evidence to a federal court to improve a claim that had been previously presented to the state court, does that make the claim in the federal petition an unexhausted “new” claim such that a petitioner can rely upon Martinez to overcome the procedural default that he would inevitably face in state court if he attempted to raise the new claim?  The Dickens opinion says yes.  It's a great opinion for habeas petitioners.

My favorite part about the opinion was its language about Martinez vs. Pinholster.  Long-time readers will know that this has been a favorite issue of mine for awhile.  It’s also something that Alex has written about on here.  The Ninth Circuit makes quick work of it. And the winner is . . . Martinez!  Here’s the relevant discussion:

We reject any argument that Pinholster bars the federal district court's ability to consider Dickens's “new” IAC claim. The state argues that the district court cannot consider new allegations or evidence proffered for the first time to the district court. In Pinholster, the Supreme Court made clear that a federal habeas court may not consider evidence of a claim that was not presented to the state court. 131 S.Ct. at 1398. However, this prohibition applies only to claims previously “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.” Id. at 1401; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Pinholster does not bar Dickens from presenting evidence of his “new” IAC claim, because the claim was not “adjudicated on the merits” by the Arizona courts. While the Arizona courts did previously adjudicate a similar IAC claim, the new allegations and evidence “fundamentally altered” that claim, as discussed above. See, e.g., Aiken, 841 F.2d at 883. Pinholster says nothing about whether a court may consider a “new” claim, based on “new” evidence not previously presented to the state courts. See 131 S.Ct. at 1401 n.10. Indeed, the Pinholster court expressly declined to “decide where to draw the line between new claims and claims adjudicated on the merits.” Id. Thus, Pinholster does not affect earlier cases like Vasquez, Aiken, and Nevius, or a federal habeas court's ability to consider new evidence where the petitioner successfully shows cause to overcome the procedural default. 

Short and sweet. And patently logical.

What’s the wrinkle in this case?  Well, soon after the opinion was issued, the petitioner died.  En banc opinions are beginning to look cursed, huh?  As a result of the death, the State moved to vacate the opinion.  Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit denied the motion stating:

[J]udicial precedents “are not merely the property of private litigants,” but are “valuable to the legal community as a whole.”  . . . The precedent set by the en banc panel in this case will undoubtedly affect cases now pending before this court. We see no reason to undo this precedent and force future panels to duplicate our efforts by re-deciding issues we have already resolved within the contours of article III.

So Dickens remains good law.  And good law it is for habeas petitioners.

The en banc machine got kicked back into gear again this week.  The Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear en banc a capital case, McKinney v. Ryan, that raised the following issue: is an Eddings error structural or is it subject to harmless error?  An Eddings error occurs when a state court refuses to allow  certain mitigating evidence during the penalty phase because that evidence was not causally connected to the crime.  Eddings stated that all mitigating evidence must be considered (I hope I am getting this right, I am a non-capital habeas person).  For years, Arizona had violated this clearly established law.  For years, the Ninth Circuit found the error structural.  But recently, a panel found that an Eddings error was harmless.  The dissent in McKinney indicated that there was now an intra-circuit split on the issue and it should be heard en banc.  Ask and ye shall receive.

Finally, there is one other pending en banc case called Frost v. Van Boenning.  It was argued last June. Reviewing the en banc petition, it appears that the issues are very standard-of-review heavy that only a true devotee of habeas will appreciate. Here's the main issue from the petition: "The New 'Super AEDPA Requirement' of Factual Identity with Supreme Court Precedent Conflicts with Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Decisions and Presents an Issue of Exceptional Importance."  That's an issue I have also complained about on here for years (I called it the "troubling trend").  And it's something that one of my former colleague's at Brooklyn Law School, Ursula Bentele, wrote about in depth. Frost is still pending.  More info on Frost here.

Habeas Corpus - Reinhardt Opinions - Part I

By JK

If there is one judge who has been viewed as the poster child for the Ninth Circuit run amok in habeas cases, it's Judge Stephen Reinhardt.  His name has become nearly synonymous with summary habeas reversals from the Supreme Court.

However, I have great admiration for the judge's work in habeas cases.  Despite some nasty reversals from the Supreme Court, he refuses to relent in his pursuit of fairness in habeas cases.

In two recent opinions, he has done great work in showing that the Supreme Court's recent attempts to restrict habeas corpus can be navigated around to reach the fair result. I'll talk about the first one in this post, and the second one in a later post.

Back in 2011, the Supreme Court in Harrington v. Richter defined unreasonable under 2254(d)(1) in a ridiculously harsh way using a multi-layered "fairminded judge" standard.  If taken literally, the "fairminded judge" standard would mean that a habeas petitioner would have to essentially show judicial incompetence or bad faith in order to get habeas relief. And both the States and federal judges have used it this way.  I have bemoaned this standard, criticizing it for its harshness and for the fact that it silently overruled Williams v. Taylor's rejection of nearly the exact same standard.  In fact, the Court in Williams stated that the term "unreasonable" could not be defined.

But nothing like this can deter Reinhardt from getting to the fair result.  Back on September 5, 2013, Reinhardt authored the decision in Dow v. Virga.  He granted habeas relief based on a Napue claim.* And he grants it under the Richter "fairminded judge" standard.**

*A Napue claim is where the prosecutor knowingly elicits false testimony and fails to correct it.

**Actually, it's a little more complicated than that.  He first finds that the state courts used the wrong legal standard making its decision contrary to federal law.  But he said that, in the alternative, even if the state used proper standard, it was an unreasonable application of Napue.

But the best part is how Reinhardt dismisses my complaint that Richter changed the unreasonableness standard under 2254(d)(1).  And I am happy to have Reinhardt show me that I am wrong.  Reinhardt explains that "fairminded" really is not that important and that the crux of the matter is whether the state court decision was "unreasonable."  In other words, his take is that Richter did not change the word "unreasonable" to mean anything other than "unreasonable."  Here's what he said:

The “fairminded jurist” standard is an objective standard of law, not a reference to the quality of the judge making the decision. The standard, therefore, does not require us to evaluate whether the individual jurists are “fairminded” in the sense that they are generally impartial and honest adjudicators, but rather whether there could objectively be fairminded disagreement as to the outcome dictated by the Supreme Court’s clearly established law. Fairminded jurists can make mistakes in legal reasoning or judgment, and if such a mistake is beyond reasonable legal disagreement, the “fairminded jurist” standard is satisfied. Were we to apply a fairminded jurist standard literally, a federal court could never reverse a state court’s habeas decision. For every state appellate court contains at least one fairminded jurist, if not a majority of its supreme court or appellate court members who voted to reject the petitioner’s arguments. When we reverse a state court’s habeas decision we are surely not saying that all the state court justices whom we are reversing are not fairminded jurists, but rather that objectively the answer is one that a fairminded jurist should reach.

So habeas practioners take note: Reinhardt has shown the way around Richter.  At least temporarily.

Habeas Corpus - Checking In on Sessoms

By JK

Hello again, internets.  Been a long while since I posted something.  Too long.  Let's just blame the sequester.  I hope to start posting more regularly.  Fortunately, Matt has been putting up a lot of good stuff over the past few months so the group blog remained active as I adjusted to life under sequestration.  Which looks like it will painfully continue for the foreseeable future. And don't even get me started about the likely shutdown.  Grrrr. 

Back in August 2012, the legendary Betty Fletcher wrote the 6-5 en banc decision in Sessoms v. Runnels, granting habeas relief based on the police obtaining a statement from a defendant after he had invoked his right to counsel.  

Petitioner, a 19-year-old, was taken into custody and, before he was given his Miranda rights, the following exchange occurred: 

Sessoms: There wouldn't be any possible way that I could have a — a lawyer present while we do this?

[Detective]: Well, uh, what I'll do is, um —

Sessoms: Yeah, that's what my dad asked me to ask you guys ... uh, give me a lawyer.

The California courts rejected his right to counsel claim because, in their view, he had not made an unambiguous request for an attorney.  Judge B. Fletcher* concluded that California unreasonably extended this standard to this situation.  According to Judge Fletcher, the "unambiguous" request test applies after Miranda has been given.  But before the rights are read, a request such as the one here is sufficient to assert the right to counsel under clearly established Supreme Court law that focus on pre-Miranda invocation of the right to counsel.  Beautifully reasoned opinion.

*I use "B. Fletcher" here since her son William Fletcher is also a judge on the Ninth Circuit.  So saying Judge Fletcher used to be imprecise.  At this point, if you write Judge Fletcher, you should probably be referring to W. Fletcher.

But, come on.  Let's have some real talk (NSFW due to language, I believe). In the real world, this was obviously a request for an attorney.  Breaking out, as I typically do, my uncommon sense meter, who in their right mind would not believe that this kid was asking for an attorney?  Even the police officers in this case believed that he was, as they responded to his request by convincing this young guy that having an attorney present was not in his best interest.  Feels like irony lives somewhere in there.  It rates pretty high on the meter.

Sadly, this great decision was Judge B. Fletcher's last habeas opinion.  She passed away in October 2012.

The warden sought cert. in the Supreme Court and it sat up there for the second half of the Court's term.  Then at the end of June 2013, the Supreme Court GVR'd the case based on Salinas v. Texas -- the uncommon sense case that says that you have to speak in order to remain silent.  To note, Sessoms had a different name up in the high court due to a new warden: Grounds v. Sessoms.  

Sadly again as a result of the GVR, Judge Fletcher's opinion is no longer on the books. My sense is that the GVR was a compromise among the liberal and conservative judges to avoid having to deal with a case that is not an ideal candidate for a summary reversal.  On a cynical and grisly level, it's possible that the conservative judges may also have decided to take a gamble and send it back down knowing that the lineup in a close 6 to 5 opinion was going to change now that Judge B. Fletcher could no longer participate.  But no judges would actually think that way, would they?

On remand, the Ninth Circuit ordered further briefing on whether Salinas is relevant to Sessoms. Obviously, it isn't.  And I think that's probably why the court framed the question as whether that case is "relevant" as opposed to what "impact" it had on the case.

I checked the lineup for the new en banc panel (you have to scroll down a ways on the Ninth Circuit's en banc page to find it).  The lineup remains the same, except Judge M. Margaret McKeown has now replaced B. Fletcher.  She is a Clinton appointee and has been around for awhile.  I have been told that it's a pretty good draw for the habeas petitioner.

Going be interesting to see what happens here.

 

Habeas Corpus - En Banc Watch!

By JK

This week coming up is En Banc Week at the Ninth Circuit!  On Monday through Thursday in the court's Seattle courtroom, a panel of eleven judges will be hearing a case en banc, one in the morning and one in the afternoon.  Please read the court's en banc announcement.

Two of the cases are habeas cases (the links are to the petitions for rehearing):

Dickens v. Ryan* - June at at 10:00 a.m. (the first one of the week, actually)

Frost v. Van Boening - June 26 at 9:30

*Well, the link is to the habeas petitioner's petition.  The State sought rehearing as well and its petition was granted.  The State's petition is what brought in the Martinez issue.

You can watch live videos of the en banc arguments at the courthouses in Pasadena, Portland, and San Francisco (first come first serve).  You can eventually watch and listen to the arguments in the court's audio and video archives.

Just to note, the title of this post is meant to be stated in the way that Brian Fantana said Panda Watch.  The preview for the sequel is below (Brian Fantana's hair is amazing; he looks a lot like Juan Epstein), but I can't say that I am not worried that this is going to be disappointing.  All I can say is that the preview was better the second time I watched it.

 

Habeas Corpus - Martinez vs. Pinholster - Who wins?

By JK

Has the Ninth Circuit found another way around Pinholster?  Can a petitioner rely upon a Martinez argument in order to have a federal court review "new" evidence?  Boy, these pathways around Pinholster really are a hot topic in these parts.  

On Monday March 4, Judge Tallman, joined by many, if not all, of the other conservative judges on the Ninth Circuit, issued a published order dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc in a capital habeas case called Schad v. Ryan.  

In an unpublished order, the three-judge panel in Schad remanded the case to the district court for that court to determine whether petitioner could rely upon Martinez to establish cause for a procedurally defaulted IAC claim.  Petitioner had raised an IAC claim based on counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase.  In his habeas petition, petitioner was relying upon mitigating evidence that post-conviction counsel ("PCC") failed to present to the state courts.  While PCC had raised an IAC claim based on a failure to present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase, PCC had not presented this particular mitigating evidence to the state courts.*  This failure was the basis of the Martinez argument.

* Specifically, in state court, the claim focused on counsel's failure to investigate and present additional evidence regarding his tragic history of child abuse.  The new mitigating evidence in federal court was evidence of his mental illness as an adult.

This made these conservative judges angry.  In their mind, petitioner was using an improper way around Pinholster to have the federal court consider new evidence not presented to the state courts.  To them, this was not a "new" IAC claim.  In their eyes, petitioner was simply making the old claim prettier with fancy new evidence and then improperly arguing that Martinez allowed the federal court to consider that better-looking new evidence under a new IAC claim.

I find the dissenting judges' analysis a little hard to accept.  In my mind, these judges are simply unhappy with the logical consequences of Martinez.  I really don't think that there can be much of a debate that what the three-judge panel allowed here is fully consistent with Martinez -- petitioner was arguing cause based on post-conviction counsel's "errors" for failing to "properly present" an IAC claim.  Those are words quoted out of the first paragraph of Martinez.  

So Martinez has the upper hand in this round.  But the scorecard could change considerably after the en banc argument in Dickens.  Actually, reviewing the Schad unpublished order, it also appears that a Martinez argument is going to be addressed in the Detrich en banc as well.  Looks like there are going to be many battles up ahead over the reach of Martinez.

Habeas Corpus - Ninth Circuit Stays the Course

By JK

Soon after my move out here to the Ninth Circuit, I talked about a way that the Ninth Circuit has used to get around Pinholster.  Essentially, the Ninth Circuit will conclude that the highly deferential standard of review does not apply, and the court can conduct a de novo review and hear new evidence, where the state court's fact-finding was unreasonable. And one way in which a state court’s fact finding can be unreasonable is where the state court’s factual finding process was deficient.  More specifically, the Ninth Circuit has “held that the state court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing may render its fact-finding process unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2).” 

It's a lovely and creative way around the most problematic part of Pinholster.  But one problem with my prior post was that I did rely, in part, on a decision that subsequently went en banc, Detrich v. Ryan.  It means that the original panel decision is not binding law.  And that en banc rehearing remains sub judice.  The entire decision may end up getting completely vacated by the en banc court.

So I was pleased when the Ninth Circuit decided Hurles v. Ryan.*  In Hurles, the Ninth Circuit remanded a capital case for an evidentiary hearing on a judicial bias claim.  But to get there, the court had to find that the state court's fact finding process was deficient. Here's what the court said: "We have held repeatedly that where a state court makes factual findings without an evidentiary hearing or other opportunity for the petitioner to present evidence, the fact-finding process itself is deficient and not entitled to deference."  

* There seems to be a little bit of a convoluted history as to how this opinion got issued.  According to the summary, "The panel withdrew its opinion filed July 7, 2011, andpublished at 650 F.3d 1301 (9th Cir. 2011), filed a replacement opinion, denied a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc as moot but allowed the parties to file a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc with respect to the replacement opinion."  The instant opinion seems to be the one that was entered after rehearing.

Okay, it is not stated as clearly as it was in Detrich.*  But it really is the same principle: the federal courts can hear new evidence and/or hold an evidentiary hearing when the state fact-finding process was deficient.  And that includes when no evidentiary hearing was held in state court.  

* There they said that where the process was unreasonable, "we proceed to evaluate the petitioner’s claim de novo and may then consider evidence that was properly presented for the first time in federal court."

But I will point out that, I don't think it is just in the situations where a hearing was not held in state court (as the court stated in Hurles).  It must be where it was unreasonable for the state court not to have held a hearing.  In the court's defense, it's discussion in Hurles made clear that the state court was acting unreasonably throughout the fact-finding process.

Thus, the Ninth Circuit continues to offer this unreasonable-fact-finding-process as a way around Pinholster where the state court refuses to hold a hearing.  Let's hope that the en banc court in Detrich doesn't take it away.  

Habeas Corpus - En Banc'ed - Updated/Edited

In January 2013, the Ninth Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc in a capital habeas case called Dickens v. Ryan.  According to the Ninth Circuit's en banc page, the en banc argument will be calendared the week of June 24 in Seattle, Washington.

This case poses a really interesting situation.  Petitioner lost on his main claim, that the death penalty could not be imposed on him because he was not a major participant in the murder, but obtained a remand to the district court for that court to consider a Martinez cause argument based on a procedurally-defaulted IAC claim.

Petitioner was the one who sought and obtained rehearing en banc. (ed. - see below) Petitioner's petition sought rehearing on the "major participant" issue.  The Martinez issue was not mentioned at all in the petition or even in the State's opposition (ed. - but see below).

The order granting the petition states: 

The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

It's standard.  But what now happens to the Martinez issue?  (ed. - see below) Is that part of the panel decision no longer binding?  (ed. - yes - see below) Is everything now up for grabs on rehearing?  (ed. - yes - see below) Can the State ask the en banc court to revisit the Martinez claim? (ed. - yes - see below) 

I don't know the answer to these questions. (ed. - Well, the update gives answers to these questions, see below)  It would be a shame for a petitioner to get rehearing on an issue on which he lost, and then have the en banc court take away the relief on the issue on which he won.  (ed. - that would be a shame, but not applicable here) Particularly where the State did not even seek rehearing on that issue.  Is this a risk that a petitioner takes when he seeks en banc review?  I am really curious about this.

UPDATE/EDIT:  I did not have all of the information about the en banc rehearing when I wrote the post.  I guess that I should not have relied exclusively on the Ninth Circuit's en banc page which only linked to the habeas petitioner's en banc petition.  

It turns out that the State separately sought rehearing on the Martinez issue.  Although the order granting en banc doesn't specify, it would appear that both petitions were granted.  So the whole thing is getting reviewed.  I guess that answers most of the questions I had above.  One question does remain unanswered (does a petitioner face the risk of giving up a partial win when seeking en banc review on the parts on which he lost). But that only applies to the hypothetical situation where both sides don't seek rehearing en banc in a "split" decision.  I am still curious about that, but it's just not relevant here.

Habeas Corpus - Sitting By Designation

By JK

Got a little bit of a backlog with recent Ninth Circuit habeas decisions.  Been a bunch.  I hate to group them all into a single post, so I plan on doing several relatively short ones.

Back on February 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued its published opinion in Dyer v. Hornbeck.  The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief despite a Miranda violation.  

When I first saw the decision, I had to do a double take as the author of the opinion was Judge Robert Sack -- of the Second Circuit.  Looks like I was not the only one who headed West.  Of course, Judge Sack was only sitting by designation.  But it was nice to see a familiar name as I did argue a couple of habeas appeals before him.  I wanted to say, "Hey, Judge Sack, remember me?  You once complimented me and my adversary for doing a good job during an oral argument . . . (voice trailing off)"*

*Sorry to mention this type of ego-related thing, but it was a nice moment.  And it happened with both my former boss and my future wife in the audience.

In any event, you may have noticed that I said flatly "despite a Miranda violation."  Intentional.  The interesting part about the decision was the concurrence.  Judge Milan Smith explained that had this been a direct appeal, he would have found a Miranda violation.  However, since it was being decided under the deferential standard of review, relief had to be denied.  We've all seen this type of thing before. 

The frustration of that inspired me to create a new tag line for habeas review:

AEDPA - Tolerating Constitutional Violations Since 1996!

I'll use it when appropriate.