Hayes v. Ayers
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 458
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hayes was convicted of two 1981 murders in Santa Cruz County and sentenced to death after retrial in 1986.
- Pretrial publicity alleged to prejudice Hayes included extensive local press coverage and earlier acquittals and mental-health history.
- Hayes moved for change of venue multiple times; the court denied the motions before and during trial.
- Key witnesses Garcia and Weller testified; Garcia sought immunity; Weller testified to a murder-for-hire allegation, and the prosecution elicited related statements.
- The district court denied Hayes's 2254 petition; on appeal the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo under AEDPA standards.
- The court addressed eight guilt-phase claims, including venue, hearsay, confrontation, Napue, security, appellate delay, and cumulative error, ultimately affirming the denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prejudicial pretrial publicity required a change of venue | Hayes | Ayers | No due-process violation; no presumption or actual prejudice mandating venue change |
| Whether hearsay of Dahl's firearms convictions violated Confrontation Clause | Hayes | Ayers | No Bruton/Confrontation violation; evidence properly limited and not testimonial against Hayes |
| Whether Weller's statement about a $25,000 murder-for-hire contract required a mistrial | Hayes | Ayers | No due-process violation; curative instruction and exclusion rendered impact minimal |
| Whether preventing Wiles from testifying violated Confrontation Clause | Hayes | Ayers | No Confrontation violation; cross-examination adequacy preserved and testimony unlikely to alter verdict |
| Whether prosecution failed to correct Garcia's false immunity testimony under Napue | Hayes | Ayers | No Napue violation; testimony not shown false or prosecutorial knowledge of falsity |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (codefendant confession implicating other defendant; confrontation concerns)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (redaction of confessions and confrontation concerns)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (cross-examination and bias evidence limitations)
- McGuire v. United States, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (due process limits on unfairly influenced trials; excluded hearsay context)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecution's failure to correct false testimony affecting credibility)
- Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) (media coverage and courtroom disruption considerations)
- Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963) (pretrial publicity and trial integrity)
- Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984) (time gap between publicity and trial affecting prejudice)
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (presumed vs. actual prejudice analysis from publicity)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986) (security measures analysis in a capital-trial context)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. _ (2010) (presumed prejudice framework; actual prejudice evaluation)