DeRosa v. Workman
696 F.3d 1302
10th Cir.2012Background
- Petitioner sought rehearing en banc; panel denied the en banc request.
- Dissent asserts Oklahoma prosecutors consistently allow victim-impact testimony from relatives in capital sentencing.
- Dissent argues such testimony violates Supreme Court precedent (Booth, Robison) and should not be treated as harmless error.
- Panel applied a de novo standard and Brecht/Kotteakos framework but upheld harmlessness despite constitutional error.
- Dissent contends AEDPA deference to OCCA is inappropriate given repeated constitutional violations.
- Court acknowledges no direct supervisory power over Oklahoma courts; suggests the Supreme Court is the sole remedy for ongoing pattern.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether victim-impact testimony from a relative violates the Constitution | Tolbert testimony powerfully sways jurors; unconstitutional to permit. | Panel deemed the error harmless given overwhelming aggravation evidence. | Harmlessness upheld; panel rejection of reversal. |
| Whether the harmless-error analysis applied is appropriate given repeated violations | Pattern of constitutional violations warrants de novo scrutiny and reversal. | Apply Brecht and AEDPA framework; deference to state court under Williams/Taylor remains. | Harmless-error review sustained under Brecht/AEDPA framework. |
| Whether the court should intervene to halt Oklahoma’s victim-impact practices | Court should treat pattern as structural defect and remedy it. | No supervisory authority over state courts; remedy lies with Supreme Court. | No interlocutory relief; authority limited to Supreme Court review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987) (victim-impact testimony unconstitutional)
- Robison v. Maynard, 943 F.2d 1216 (10th Cir.1991) (victim-impact testimony prohibited)
- Kotteakos United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless-error standard in habeas corpus)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless-error standard in appellate review)
- Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 (1988) (capital-sentencing discretion complicates harmless error)
- Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (structural vs. evidentiary errors; impact on harmlessness)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (de novo review described as thorough inquiry)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1981) (standards for evaluating sufficiency on review)
- Welch v. Workman, 639 F.3d 980 (10th Cir.2011) (unconstitutional victim-impact evidence; harmless error in context)
- Hain v. Gibson, 287 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir.2002) (unconstitutionally admitted victim-impact testimony)