Fairchild v. Trammell
784 F.3d 702
10th Cir.2015Background
- Richard Fairchild was convicted in Oklahoma of first-degree child-abuse murder for the death of his girlfriend’s 3‑year‑old son and sentenced to death; the jury found the murder especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
- At trial defense focused on chronic alcoholism and intoxication; mitigation evidence included testimony from Fairchild, family members, and psychiatrist Dr. John Smith who suggested chronic alcohol-related brain impairment but did not perform or present neuropsychological testing.
- Fairchild’s postconviction materials and his federal §2254 petition later included new expert affidavits (2002) alleging organic brain damage (Drs. Smith and Crown) linking head trauma and boxing history to fronto‑temporal impairment potentiated by alcohol.
- The Tenth Circuit previously remanded, finding the §2254 claim based on the 2002 affidavits materially different from the state‑court claim and requiring exhaustion; Fairchild returned to state court but the OCCA denied his second postconviction application as procedurally barred under state rules (timeliness and successive‑application restrictions).
- On federal habeas review the district court denied relief and denied an evidentiary hearing; the Tenth Circuit in this appeal affirms, holding (inter alia) that the OCCA’s procedural bar was valid, Martinez/Trevino do not excuse the default under Oklahoma’s procedures, and Fairchild waived any separate argument on the exhausted ineffective‑assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Fairchild's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mens rea for Oklahoma child‑abuse murder and retroactivity (Due Process/Equal Protection) | OCCA changed mens rea after trial (Hockersmith/Bannister), so retroactive application violated due process/equal protection | OCCA’s later articulation reflected controlling law; no ex post facto or equal‑protection violation | Claim rejected; prior Tenth Circuit precedent controls and Fairchild’s arguments fail |
| Eighth Amendment challenge to death penalty given attenuated mens rea (Enmund/Tison) | Minimal mens rea for child‑abuse murder makes death unconstitutional without extra culpability finding | Enmund/Tison require extra finding only when defendant did not actually kill the victim; here jury found Fairchild killed the child | Claim rejected under Workman and Malicoat precedent |
| Jury instruction on life without parole (meaning of LWOP) | Jury confused; court’s response insufficient requiring explanation of LWOP meaning | Oklahoma law does not require explanation of parole process; trial court properly instructed | Claim rejected; OCCA decision entitled to AEDPA deference (Littlejohn precedent) |
| Ineffective assistance re: failure to investigate/present organic brain damage (new 2002 affidavits) | Trial/appellate counsel failed to investigate and present evidence of organic brain damage causing or potentiating impulsivity; this was not adequately presented in state proceedings | OCCA procedurally barred the successive application; Oklahoma process allowed raising ineffectiveness on direct appeal (so Martinez/Trevino do not excuse default) | Claim barred: OCCA’s procedural bar independent and adequate; Martinez/Trevino inapplicable; exhausted portion of claim waived or not shown to violate Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) (limits on death penalty for nontriggermen)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) (death penalty and major participant/culpability analysis)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA ‘‘clearly established federal law’’ standard guidance)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (§2254(d)(1) review limited to state‑court record)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to state‑court decisions and Richter standard)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (ineffective assistance in initial‑review collateral proceeding may establish cause)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) (Martinez applies where state procedural framework makes raising trial‑ineffectiveness on direct appeal impracticable)
- Workman v. Mullin, 342 F.3d 1100 (10th Cir.) (Enmund/Tison do not bar death penalty when defendant actually killed victim)
- Fairchild v. Workman, 579 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir.) (prior Tenth Circuit opinion remanding for exhaustion of new ineffective‑assistance evidence)