Eric Mann v. Charles Ryan, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24528

Eric Mann was sentenced to death in Arizona state court for the murders of Alberts and Bazurto after a drug-related dispute.
The murders occurred when Mann allegedly planned a drug rip-off and shot Alberts and Bazurto in Mann's home; after the killings, they moved and hid the bodies and cleaned the scene.
Trial defense relied on self-defense theory; two key witnesses, Miller and Alejandro, testified under immunity; defense called no witnesses itself.
At sentencing, the court found three aggravating factors and six non-statutory mitigating factors; the judge explicitly held Mann remorseful only as limited by his writings and psychologist’s diagnosis of potential antisocial personality disorder.
Mann exhaustively pursued post-conviction relief (Rule 32) and then federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief, with some claims certified for appeal.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo guilt-phase claims and applies AEDPA to state-court rulings; the court affirms in part and reverses in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Guilt-phase ineffective assistance	Mann argues counsel erred by not calling him to testify.	Counsel acted strategically to avoid perjury and harmful cross-examination.	No relief; decision was strategic and reasonable.
Sentencing-phase ineffective assistance—the investigation	Counsel failed to investigate and present reasonably available mitigating evidence (e.g., brain injury, medical records, life history).	Counsel's investigation and strategy were inadequate and prejudicial, violating Strickland.	Relief granted; deficiency prejudiced sentencing; AEDPA does not bar relief; remand for new sentencing.
Prejudice standard under Strickland in sentencing	Omitted evidence would have altered the sentencing balance.	Evidence would not have changed the outcome; existing factors were closely balanced.	Omitted mitigating evidence likely would have changed the balance; prejudice shown.
AEDPA standard application on state court rulings	State court applied the correct Strickland standard; deference under AEDPA should apply.	State court applied an incorrect standard and the federal court should recharacterize the analysis.	AEDPA did not bar relief; the state court misapplied the prejudice standard.
Remedy on success of Strickland claim	Habeas relief should be granted with a new sentencing hearing.	Remand or reweighing should maintain the sentence if no prejudice established.	Writ of habeas corpus granted with remand for a new sentencing proceeding.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance and prejudice)
Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986) (ethical duty not to suborn perjury governs guilt-phase strategy)
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2002) (sound reasons to not call witnesses in guilt phase under Strickland)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (duty to investigate mitigating evidence; deficient performance if neglected)
Romppilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (prejudice standard considers totality of mitigating evidence)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (prejudice requires not necessarily a probable change, but a reasonable likelihood)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (clarifies application of AEDPA deference and prejudice standard)
Lafler v. Cooper, 570 U.S. 156 (U.S. 2012) (procedural posture for ineffective assistance whether to grant relief)
Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (U.S. 2002) (ambiguous state-court records and AEDPA deference guidance)
Pinholster v. Cullen, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (limits on reweighing evidence in habeas review; no automatic relief)