Clark Elmore v. Stephen Sinclair
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5230
9th Cir.2015Background
- In April 1995 Clark Elmore raped and murdered his stepdaughter; he later confessed on tape and pleaded guilty to aggravated first‑degree murder, making him death‑eligible.
- Defense counsel (Komorowski), inexperienced in capital cases, conducted mock juries and chose a sentencing strategy centered on Elmore’s remorse and acceptance of responsibility rather than a full mental‑health/brain‑damage mitigation theory.
- Elmore appeared in jail clothing and was shackled (belly chain and leg irons) on the first day of voir dire; shackles were removed thereafter. The prosecution played a redacted portion of Elmore’s taped confession at sentencing; defense elicited the omitted remorse material via cross‑examination.
- Postconviction, the Washington Supreme Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on failure to present mental‑health/brain‑damage evidence, then denied relief, concluding counsel’s choice of a remorse strategy was not deficient and any shackling error was nonprejudicial.
- Elmore filed a federal habeas petition raising due‑process (shackling), ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to investigate/present mental health/brain damage, not objecting to shackles or redaction, plea advice), and juror bias claims; the district court denied relief and the Ninth Circuit affirmed under AEDPA deference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process: shackling on first day of voir dire | Elmore: visible shackles prejudiced jury and violated due process | State: shackling was brief, partly consistent with defense strategy (remorse/jail garb), and crime’s brutality reduced prejudice | No habeas relief — even if error, Elmore failed to show prejudice given limited duration and violent crime |
| IAC: failure to object to restraints | Elmore: counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudiced penalty outcome | State: counsel may have used visible restraints as part of remorse strategy; no reasonable probability of different outcome | No relief — state court reasonably found lack of prejudice from one‑day shackling |
| IAC: failure to investigate/present mental‑health and brain‑damage mitigation | Elmore: counsel should have fully investigated neuropsychological/brain damage and presented that mitigation | State: counsel reasonably chose a remorse strategy after expert evaluations and mock juries; presenting mental‑health evidence risked harmful rebuttal | No relief — court held strategy was reasonable and, under AEDPA, state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of Strickland (though concurrence questioned adequacy of investigation) |
| Juror bias: Juror 12 concealed past minor molestation | Elmore: juror dishonestly answered voir dire and was biased, warranting relief | State: incidents were minor, juror considered them noncriminal and affirmed impartiality; no cause challenge would have succeeded | No relief — state court reasonably found incidents immaterial and no demonstrated bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA standard and deference to state court determinations)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (unreasonable application/contrary to law framework under §2254(d))
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for counsel errors affecting guilty pleas)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigating evidence and evaluate reasonableness of investigation)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (deference to counsel’s strategic choices and AEDPA’s "doubly deferential" review)
- Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006) (prejudice inquiry guidance)
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (impartial jury standard)
- McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (materiality of juror false answers on voir dire)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (remedy for juror bias is evidentiary hearing)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (strategic decisions can be reasonable even if alternative strategies exist)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (guilty plea decision in capital context and counsel’s role)