DeRosa v. Workman
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10692
10th Cir.2012Background
- DeRosa was convicted of two counts of first-degree felony murder and sentenced to death on both counts for killings on October 2, 2000.
- Direct appeal affirmed by Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) in 2004; US Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2005.
- DeRosa pursued state post-conviction relief; OCCA denied claims as procedurally barred or meritless in 2004.
- Federal habeas petition filed May 13, 2005; district court denied most claims but granted COA on three issues.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviewed under AEDPA standards, addressing ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, and victim-impact issues.
- The court ultimately affirmed the district court’s denial of relief, rejecting DeRosa’s arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel | DeRosa contends trial counsel failed to present additional mitigating witnesses. | State argues claim was not exhausted and, on merits, additional witnesses would not change outcome. | DeRosa not prejudiced; no meritorious Strickland showing. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during trial | Prosecutor misstated or improperly commented to influence verdicts. | State asserts remarks were within bounds and did not prejudice the verdicts. | No due process violation; cumulative effect not reversible. |
| Victim-impact testimony at sentencing | Admission of victim-impact evidence violated Eighth Amendment. | Payne and Booth framework allows some victim-impact testimony; error not prejudicial. | Admission was not prejudicial; Brecht standard satisfied; no reversal. |
| Cumulative error analysis | The alleged errors cumulatively denied fair sentencing. | Cumulative misconduct and defenses undermined fairness. | No fundamental unfairness; cumulative impact not reversible. |
| Voir dire/mitigating-evidence limitations (procedural issue) | Prosecutor’s voir dire questions limited mitigating evidence; improper focus. | Not properly preserved for state review; procedural bar applies. | Claim procedurally barred; not reviewable on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (U.S. 1974) (prosecutorial remarks judged in context)
- Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1985) (limitations on prosecutorial appeals to juror responsibility)
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1977) (importance of reasoned, non-capricious sentencing)
- Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1976) (unconstitutional mandatory death penalties lacking individualized consideration)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1991) (victim-impact evidence admissibility at sentencing)
- Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1987) (victim-impact statements generally impermissible at sentencing (overruled by Payne on some points))
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1993) (harmless-error standard in habeas corpus review)
- Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2007) (harmless-error standard for habeas relief guidance)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1986) (prosecutorial misconduct review context)
- Clark v. Mitchell, 425 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2005) (mitigating-evidence value assessment in homicide cases)
- Welch v. Sirmons, 451 F.3d 675 (10th Cir. 2006) (victim-impact evidence and sentencing considerations)