Detrich v. Ryan, 677 F.3d 958

Detrich was sentenced to death after a jury convicted him of murder, kidnapping, and sexual abuse in Arizona.
Detrich raised state-post conviction and federal habeas claims challenging trial counsel’s penalty-phase performance for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence.
The district court denied relief under AEDPA, and the Ninth Circuit previously reversed, finding deficiency and prejudice but was remanded after Cullen v. Pinholster.
On remand, the court again held that Detrich was entitled to habeas relief for penalty-phase ineffective assistance due to the failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence, and to present neuropsychological expert testimony.
New evidence and expert testing (neuropsychological deficits) were developed in federal court, prompting reassessment under Pinholster and related standards.
The court remanded to vacate the death sentence if the state did not re-sentence Detrich within a district-court deadline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel deficient for failing to investigate/present mitigating evidence?	Detrich (counsel) failed a thorough mitigation investigation.	Arizona post-conviction court found no deficient performance.	Yes, deficient performance found.
Did deficient performance prejudice the defense under Strickland?	New neuropsychological evidence would have shifted balance toward mitigation.	Evidence would not have changed outcome given aggravation.	Yes, prejudice established.
How does Pinholster affect review when considering new evidence?	New evidence may be considered de novo if state court erred.	Review constrained to state-court record per Pinholster.	New evidence considered de novo when appropriate; relief granted but subject to Pinholster constraints.
Should the court apply de novo/pre-AEDPA standards to prejudice after finding unreasonable fact-finding?	De novo review applicable to prejudice given unreasonable factual determinations.	AEDPA deference still applies.	Court may apply de novo prejudice review where applicable; relief granted.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (clarifies deference in AEDPA claims challenging IAC)
Pinholster v. Davis, 131 S. Ct. 1398 (2011) (limits evidence in federal habeas to the state-court record unless exceptions apply)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (necessity of thorough mitigation investigation; police 'reasonable professional norms')
Terry Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (define 'clearly established' law for Strickland under AEDPA)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (duty to investigate mitigating evidence; use of experts)
Summerlin v. Schriro, 427 F.3d 623 (2005) (mitigation strategy and weight of evidence in balancing test)
Douglas v. Woodford, 316 F.3d 1079 (2003) (necessity of mitigating evidence; causation in mitigation)
Gretzler, 659 P.2d 1 (1983) (Arizona aggravating factor framework and weighing process)
Pinholster (discussed), 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (see above)