709 F.3d 855
9th Cir.2013Background
- Dissent from denial of rehearing en banc in Schad v. Ryan about habeas proceedings for a death-row inmate.
- Panel previously remanded for evidentiary hearing; Supreme Court vacated to apply Pinholster.
- Majority remanded again, incorporating a Martinez-based analysis to review a supposedly new IAC claim.
- Petitioner Schad argued mitigation evidence was ineffectively presented; new evidence sought in federal court.
- Dissent argues Pinholster prohibits considering new federal-habeas evidence for exhausted state claims; Martinez does not apply when default not established.
- Final panel denied en banc rehearing; amended order remains subject to en banc review; the lead opinion remains focused on delaying execution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pinholster bars new evidence in federal habeas for exhausted claims | Schad relies on Pinholster to bar new mitigating-evidence | Majority contends Martinez allows relief via new factual allegations | Pinholster applies; new evidence cannot undo exhausted state-court determinations |
| Whether Martinez applies to declare a claim procedurally defaulted | Schad claims Martinez creates relief when post-conviction counsel ineffective | Majority treats Schad's claim as procedurally defaulted | Martinez not applicable here; no procedural default found; Pinholster governs |
| Whether the court should stay execution and remand for a Martinez-based inquiry | Stay and remand delay justice; supports continued habeas review | Remand necessary to resolve ineffective assistance claim | Stay and remand improperly expand review beyond Pinholster; improper delay |
| Whether the majority’s approach would undermine AEDPA finality | Bolstered exhausted claims undermine finality of capital cases | Warranted review under AEDPA to ensure fairness | Approach risks undermining finality; Pinholster controls |
| Whether Schad showed prejudice under Brecht standard | New evidence would prejudice the outcome | Evidence either cumulative or non-prejudicial | No substantial prejudice; Brecht not satisfied under the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (limits federal review to state-court record in habeas when claim adjudicated on merits)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (U.S. 2012) (procedural default excused if state collateral counsel ineffective)
- Pinholster v. Schad, 671 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam remand to apply Pinholster; see Schad v. Ryan)
- Beardslee v. Brown, 393 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2004) (Beardslee cites procedural default and Martinez lineage)
- Stokley v. Ryan, 705 F.3d 401 (9th Cir. 2012) (prejudice standard in habeas review; Brecht considerations)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1993) (reasonable possibility of actual prejudice standard)
- Schad v. Schriro, 454 F. Supp. 2d 897 (D. Ariz. 2006) (district court on mitigation evidence; later appellate citations)