Ben-Sholom v. Ayers, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6569

Ben-Sholom was convicted of murder during a burglary and robbery in 1986 and sentenced to death in California.
In 2008, the district court granted habeas relief as to penalty-phase IAC and ordered a retrial or resentencing, with government not appealing.
Ben-Sholom appealed the denial of an evidentiary hearing on guilt-phase IAC, arguing counsel failed to present available mental-state evidence.
Guilt-phase evidence included confessions and mental-health evaluations; defense presented no guilt-phase defense at trial.
Key psychiatric evaluations suggested possible diminished or controlled intent, but California law limits such evidence to whether specific intent was formed, not to capacity.
The district court denied an evidentiary hearing; the Ninth Circuit evaluates prejudice de novo under Strickland and AEDPA standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on guilt-phase IAC	Ben-Sholom asserts untapped mental-health evidence shows lack of requisite intent.	A hearing is unnecessary where evidence wouldn't negate guilt.	No error; no reasonable probability of different outcome.
Whether Ben-Sholom was prejudiced by counsel's failure to present guilt-phase mental-state evidence	Mental-health experts would negate the specific intent required for felonies.	Confessions and record overwhelming show guilt despite omitted evidence.	Not prejudiced; evidence did not undermine confidence in the conviction.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice required)
Silva v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 2002) (pre-AEDPA de novo review of habeas claims)
McNab v. Kok, 170 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 1999) (de novo review of district court’s habeas decision)
James v. Gibson, 211 F.3d 543 (10th Cir. 2000) (pre-AEDPA legal issues reviewed de novo)