Eizember v. Trammell
803 F.3d 1129
10th Cir.2015Background
- Eizember killed Cantrells after breaking into their home and later shot and killed Tyler Montgomery and assaulted Carla Wright, leading to multiple convictions in Oklahoma including first-degree murder and death sentence
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror D.B. was properly excluded for cause under Witt/Adams | Eizember argues D.B. was irrevocably committed to death and biased | OCCA found D.B. could consider all penalties and follow instructions | AEDPA deferential review upheld OCCA; no clear Witt violation concluded |
| Whether juror J.S. was biased for death and improperly retained | J.S. showed possible death-preference but could consider all penalties | OCCA reasonably upheld trial court's assessment | OCCA reasonably applied Witt as to J.S.; no reversal |
| Whether Simmons/Beck issues require vacating the capital sentence | Beck/Schad/Simmons arguments warrant relief | Court found no Beck error; Schad controlling; no AEDPA failure shown | No due-process violation requiring vacatur of sentence; Beck not clearly implicated |
| Whether cumulative error requires relief | Errors aggregated to deny fair trial | No harmless-error findings support cumulative-error relief | No basis for cumulative-error relief; habeas denied on this point |
Key Cases Cited
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (standard for excluding jurors with views on capital punishment; deference to trial court; not require 'unmistakable clarity' of bias)
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1992) (jurors who automatically favor death cannot fairly consider aggravating/mitigating factors)
- Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1980) (impartiality standard; juror must be able to consider penalties; not require explicit bias)
- Witherspoon v. Illinois (footnote 21), Witherspoon footnote 21 (U.S. 1968) ( Witherspoon guidance on juror eligibility and final sentencing options)
- Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2007) (deference to trial court’s voir dire and demeanor; four-prong framework for impartial jurors)
- Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1980) (right to a third option for lesser-included offenses in capital cases)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (Beck limits on required multiple lesser-included offenses; third option sufficiency)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (AEDPA deference and standards for 'contrary to' vs 'unreasonable application')