Banks v. Workman, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18662

Mrs. Travis, a Korean national, was abducted, raped, and killed in 1979; Banks was later convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Oklahoma; DNA evidence tied Banks and Nelson to the crime; Banks argued multiple constitutional violations in habeas proceedings; trial included a disjunctive felony-murder/malice charge; he challenged Confrontation Clause, Brady, expert admissibility, prosecutorial misconduct, and cumulative errors.
DNA testing in 1997 linked Banks to semen; Nelson linked to the rape; blood-stain and scene evidence supported kidnapping and murder; Banks admitted presence at the scene but denied participation.
Banks claimed error in admitting his brother Walter Banks’s testimony about an alleged admission; the jury heard questioning that implied Banks admitted to the murder.
Deliberations led to a unanimous death penalty verdict based on aggravating factors: prior violent felonies, murder to avoid arrest, and especially heinous conduct; defense mitigated with family history and psychiatric testimony indicating improved behavior in prison.
OCCA and district court denied relief; federal habeas review proceeded under AEDPA standards; issues include Confrontation Clause, Brady, due process/counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and cumulative error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause error harmlessness for Walter Banks testimony	Banks argues the inference from Walter Banks’s silence violated confrontation rights	State contends error was harmless given overwhelming guilt evidence	Harmless; no grave doubt about guilt or sentencing impact
Brady materiality of the note about Banks’s brother	Note could reveal alternative killer involvement and aid defense	Note inadmissible hearsay and immaterial to guilt/sentencing	Note immaterial; not admissible or likely to uncover admissible evidence
Competent expert and counsel effectiveness at sentencing	Dr. Murphy’s demeanor and defense counsel were ineffective	Defaulted under state procedure; Martinez/ Coleman distinctions apply	Default bars review; no due process violation established
Prosecutorial misconduct affecting fairness	Prosecutor’s closing and characterizations prejudiced Banks	Arguments were improper but not enough to render trial unfair	Harmless; no fundamental unfairness shown; cumulative impact insufficient
Cumulative error standard and overall fairness	Multiple errors collectively undermine due process	Harmless errors do not cumulatively undermine validity	No grave doubt; cumulative errors do not warrant relief

Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (harmlessness standard in habeas review)
Welch v. Workman, 639 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2011) (grave doubt standard for harmless error review)
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1957) (predecessor to Burks for disjunctive charges issues)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (harmless-error standard for federal review)
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1982) (death penalty for non-triggerman felony murder)
Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (capital punishment for felony murder with reckless disregard)
Paxton v. Ward, 199 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 1999) (due process limits on evidentiary rules in sentencing)
Darden v. Mullin, 306 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 2002) (prosecutor remarks and due process appraisal)
Batttenfield v. Gibson, 236 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2001) (improper prosecutorial comments harmless analysis)
Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (U.S. 2012) (limited exception to Coleman for post-conviction counsel)
Beard v. Kindler, 130 S. Ct. 612 (U.S. 2009) (state discretionary review vs. finality of judgments)
Walker v. Martin, 131 S. Ct. 1120 (U.S. 2011) (state discretion and finality in procedural bars)