Dwayne Woods v. Stephen Sinclair
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16386
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Woods was convicted in Washington state court in 1997 of two counts of aggravated first-degree murder, one count of attempted murder, and one count of eluding police; he was sentenced to death.
- On direct appeal, Washington courts affirmed; post-conviction relief petitions were denied.
- Federal habeas corpus petition followed; issues included Faretta self-representation, Confrontation Clause, Brady material withholding, and ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC).
- The case was remanded after Martinez v. Ryan to address Martinez-related IAC claims; the panel ultimately affirms some claims, vacates others, and remands for Martinez-based proceedings.
- The majority remands to consider cause and prejudice under Martinez for certain DNA-IAC claims, while denying relief on others; a concurrence dissents on remand scope.
- Key factual background centers on the mass attacks on Telisha Shaver, Jade Moore, and Venus Shaver, DNA and fingerprint evidence, alibi evidence, and trial strategy including lack of mitigating evidence at penalty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Faretta self-representation should have been assessed | Woods unequivocally requested self-representation | State court found the request equivocal | Not entitled to relief; not an unequivocal Faretta request under the record |
| Confrontation Clause—Jade Moore statements | Admission of Jade’s out-of-court statements violated Confrontation Clause | Some statements fit excited utterance/medical-examination exceptions | Constitutional error, harmless due to cumulative testimony; no habeas relief on the prejudice finding |
| Brady withholding of lab practices | Lab’s drafting/peering practices and mishandling evidence were suppressed | No Brady material; no causal link shown; claims procedurally defaulted or not exhausted | No Brady relief; certain sub-claims procedurally barred or not shown to be prejudicial; remand limited to Martinez claims for DNA-IAC issues on remand |
| DNA-IAC claims and Martinez remand | Trial counsels’ failure to present DNA contamination/experts prejudiced Woods | DNA issues not substantial; evidence overwhelming; remand warranted for Martinez review | Remand for Martinez-based assessment on DNA-IAC claims; other IAC claims not remanded on the merits |
| Cumulative trial-counsel deficiencies | Cumulative errors violated due process | Individual errors not reversible; cumulative impact not enough | Denied relief for cumulative deficiencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court 1975) (right to self-representation requires unequivocal request and knowing waiver)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court 2004) (Confrontation Clause; primary rule governing testimonial statements)
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (Supreme Court 1980) (reliability-based exception to confronted statements prior to Crawford)
- White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (Supreme Court 1992) (firmly rooted hearsay exception for excited utterances/diagnostic statements)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (Supreme Court 1986) (harmless-error analysis for Confrontation Clause violations)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (IAC standard; performance deficient and prejudicial)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (Supreme Court 2012) (Martinez rule on cause to overcome procedural default for IAC claims; remand guidance)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (Supreme Court 2013) (discerns Martinez applicability to state collateral review circumstances)