926 F.3d 1215
9th Cir.2019Background
- Ernesto Martinez drove a stolen car, was pulled over for speeding by Arizona DPS Officer Robert Martin, and fatally shot him; a jury convicted Martinez of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death.
- Key eyewitnesses: Oscar Fryer (saw Martinez with a .38 and testified against him) and Susan and Steve Ball (observed Martinez flee and recorded his plate); Martinez made post-arrest statements joking he had "blasted a jura."
- Martinez appealed convictions and sentence through state postconviction relief and federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; district court denied relief and the Ninth Circuit reviewed multiple claims on appeal.
- Major issues raised: judicial-bias claim (Judge Hotham’s bailiff was friends with victim’s widow), Brady allegations regarding Fryer and other witness impeachment, multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims (failure to seek recusal, to retain pathologist, and to recall a mitigation expert), jury instruction on premeditation, Rule 60(b) procedural requests, and whether Arizona courts applied an unconstitutional causal-nexus test at sentencing.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of habeas relief on all certified claims, dismissed review of the district court's refusal to entertain a Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction, declined to expand the COA, and denied remand for an additional Brady claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial bias (bailiff relationship) | Martinez: bailiff Mills’ long friendship with victim’s widow and related courtroom conduct created an appearance of bias; PCR court erred in procedural ruling | State: claim was procedurally defaulted under Arizona Rule 32.2(a); bailiff contact did not show actual or disqualifying appearance of impropriety | Procedural default affirmed; Martinez failed to show cause and prejudice; merits not reached; IAC for failing to move for recusal denied as meritless |
| IAC — failure to move for recusal | Martinez: trial/appellate counsel ineffective for not seeking Judge Hotham’s disqualification | State: bias claim lacked merit so failing to raise it was not deficient performance | Denied: Strickland standard unmet; claim lacked merit and appellate counsel not ineffective |
| Brady — Fryer drug use and benefits | Martinez: prosecutors suppressed evidence that Fryer used meth during trial and received benefits, which would impeach him | State: evidence of Fryer’s drug charges arose after trial; no proof prosecution possessed suppressed material; plea agreement was disclosed | Denied: no Brady violation — prosecution had no duty to disclose post-trial developments and no evidence of withheld benefits |
| Rule 60(b) procedural request | Martinez: asked district court to indicate willingness to entertain Rule 60(b) motion; appealed denial | State: district court’s procedural refusal is interlocutory | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — procedural denial not reviewable on appeal |
| Jury instruction on premeditation | Martinez: instruction ambiguous/contradictory and permitted conviction on less than beyond a reasonable doubt | State: instruction as a whole and written copies corrected any oral misstatement | Denied: no due-process violation; written instructions and closings made correct standard clear |
| IAC — failure to retain pathologist (guilt phase) | Martinez: counsel should have retained independent pathologist to rebut prosecution expert on shot sequence and premeditation | State: other evidence supported premeditation; Dr. Keen’s testimony was qualified and impeached at trial | Denied: no prejudice — abundant evidence of premeditation; expert testimony had limited value |
| IAC — failure to recall mitigation expert at sentencing | Martinez: counsel should have rebutted prosecution expert to establish statutory mitigation (impaired capacity) | State: sentencing record showed defendant acted to avoid return to prison and evidence undermined G(1) mitigation; rebuttal unlikely to change result | Denied: no prejudice; mitigation outweighed by aggravating factors (murder of on-duty officer) and existing record |
| Eddings/causal nexus at sentencing | Martinez: Arizona applied unconstitutional causal-nexus test, giving family-history no weight, violating Eddings/Penry | State: Arizona Supreme Court considered family history (in other mitigating-contexts) and assigned little weight reasonably | Denied relief: court found Eddings error but no prejudice — family history remote, considered elsewhere, and aggravators substantial |
| Motion to remand for new Brady evidence (planner) | Martinez: newly discovered planner impeaches prosecution witness Hernandez and undermines premeditation | State: planner is weak impeachment; other trial evidence already undermined phone-call testimony; no materiality | Denied: not material; no remand — overwhelming evidence of premeditation |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (state procedural default bars federal habeas review absent cause and prejudice)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (limited equitable exception allowing cause to overcome default for initial-review collateral IAC claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s suppression of material exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference standard for Strickland claims on habeas review)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (due-process review of jury instruction errors requires showing the instruction infected the trial)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (sentencer must consider all relevant mitigating evidence)
- Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) (capital sentencer must be able to consider and give effect to mitigating evidence)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas prejudice standard: substantial and injurious effect)