947 F.3d 555
9th Cir.2020Background
- Defendant Ezzard Ellis convicted in 1991 of murder, attempted murder, and robbery after five trials; Donald Ames represented Ellis for the last four trials.
- Post-conviction evidence revealed Ames’ persistent, documented racial animus toward African Americans (family and coworkers’ declarations, prior cases).
- Ellis sought state habeas relief (arguing Ames’ racism created an actual conflict and ineffective assistance); state courts denied relief citing Strickland and requiring proof of prejudice by preponderance.
- Ellis pursued federal habeas; district court and a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel denied relief under AEDPA; the state later conceded that prejudice should be presumed and supported relief on rehearing en banc.
- En banc Ninth Circuit (majority concurring opinions) concluded AEDPA deference was overcome and, applying de novo review and Ninth Circuit precedent (Frazer), held Ames’ extreme racism warranted a presumption of prejudice under Cronic, entitling Ellis to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ellis) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of AEDPA deference | Ellis: State courts erred; deference should not block relief because state decision contradicted Supreme Court law | State: AEDPA applies; federal court must defer to state-court adjudication | Majority: AEDPA initially applies but state court’s decision was contrary to clearly established law (prejudice burden error), so de novo review permitted |
| Governing legal standard for counsel racism claims | Ellis: Counsel’s extreme racial animus creates an actual conflict or a Cronic-type denial warranting presumed prejudice | State (initially): Strickland or Sullivan governs; later conceded that presumed prejudice is appropriate in these facts | Majority: Cronic/Frazer presumption of prejudice applies because extreme, documented racial animus made counsel’s loyalty and testing of the prosecution unreliable |
| Burden/standard of prejudice applied by state court | Ellis: Strickland’s reasonable-probability standard should govern or prejudice should be presumed; state court wrongly required preponderance | State: State courts applied Strickland and required proof of prejudice; later waived barriers and agreed relief appropriate | Majority: State court’s statement requiring prejudice by preponderance was contrary to Strickland, allowing de novo review and application of presumption of prejudice |
| Remedy and scope of review given State’s late concession | Ellis: Federal court may grant habeas relief and order new trial based on de novo review and presumption | Dissent (and some amici/DA): State’s late concession cannot override AEDPA and Supreme Court precedent; relief improper absent clearly established law | Majority: Grant relief (remand for writ/new trial) applying Cronic presumption; dissent would affirm under AEDPA and decline to create new rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance test and reasonable-probability prejudice standard)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (addresses ineffective assistance claims based on conflicts of interest and partial presumption of prejudice)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (authorizes presumption of prejudice when counsel entirely fails to test the prosecution)
- Frazer v. United States, 18 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 1994) (presumed prejudice where counsel manifested explicit racial hostility undermining loyalty)
- Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (examined claims of Ames’ racial bias; relevant circuit precedent)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (explains when a state-court decision is "contrary to" or an "unreasonable application of" Supreme Court precedent under AEDPA)
- Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (framework for "look through" analysis of state-court orders and identifying last-reasoned state decision)