James McKinney v. Charles Ryan
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22767
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- McKinney was sentenced to death in Arizona; Arizona Supreme Court affirmed in 1996 on de novo review.
- In federal habeas, panel found issues with conviction resolved; en banc granted relief only on sentence.
- Arizona law allowed statutory and nonstatutory mitigating factors; for years nonstatutory mitigation required a causal nexus to the crime.
- McKinney presented PTSD and horrific childhood abuse as mitigating evidence; experts disputed nexus.
- Trial judge accepted PTSD diagnosis but held it did not causally affect conduct; Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, applying its causal nexus rule for nonstatutory mitigation.
- Court held AEDPA review shows Arizona’s application of the causal nexus test violated Eddings/United States Supreme Court law; grant of writ on sentence and remand for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona’s causal nexus rule for nonstatutory mitigation violated Eddings. | McKinney argues Eddings requires considering all mitigating evidence, not excluding it by nexus. | Arizona argued its nexus rule governed nonstatutory mitigation; it could limit weight but must still consider evidence. | Yes; EUAEDPA grants relief; nexus rule used was unconstitutional. |
| Whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s de novo review complied with AEDPA after an Eddings error. | Review either preserved Eddings error or allowed proper weighing of PTSD as mitigation. | De novo review properly weighed evidence under Arizona law with full consideration. | Relief granted; Arizona Court’s approach violated clearly established federal law. |
| Whether the PTSD evidence was improperly given no weight as nonstatutory mitigation. | PTSD evidence should be weighed as mitigating without an obligatory nexus. | PTSD evidence could be weighed but need nexus to misconduct to qualify as nonstatutory mitigation. | PTSD constitutes mitigating evidence; failure to weigh it violated Eddings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978) (sentencer must consider any relevant mitigating evidence)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (cannot exclude mitigating evidence as a matter of law)
- Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (U.S. 2004) (causal nexus may be weighed but not required for mitigation)
- Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (U.S. 2002) (presumption that state courts know and follow the law in AEDPA review)
- Parker v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1991) (independent weighing of mitigating and aggravating factors)
- Schad v. Ryan, 671 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2011) (clear-indication rule for Eddings cases (rejected in later position here))
- Towery v. Ryan, 673 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2012) (recognizes presumption that state courts know and follow the law in Eddings cases)
- Lopez v. Ryan, 630 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2011) (causal nexus used as weight factor, not exclusion)
- Mann v. Arizona, 934 P.2d 795 (Arizona 1997) (mitigation weight depends on nexus; prior misreadings acknowledged)
- Djerf, 959 P.2d 1274 (Arizona 1998) (explains misreading of Eddings and nexus standard)