John Doe v. Robert Ayers, Jr.
782 F.3d 425
9th Cir.2015Background
- Doe was convicted in California of murder and two burglaries with a death-eligibility predicate; the penalty phase resulted in a death sentence
- Defense counsel at the penalty phase performed inadequately, failing to investigate and present extensive mitigating evidence
- Doe’s habeas petition argued ineffective assistance of penalty-phase counsel and asserted Brady/Brady-like concerns, among other claims
- The district court denied relief on guilt-phase claims but granted relief on penalty-phase claims, which the Ninth Circuit disagreed with on prejudice and remanded
- The court ultimately held penalty-phase counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced Doe and remanded to reduce the sentence to life without parole absent a new capital sentencing proceeding
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Penalty-phase ineffectiveness of counsel | Doe | Ayers argues trial counsel's penalty-phase performance was reasonable | Deficiency found; performance not reasonable |
| Prejudice from penalty-phase deficiencies | Doe | Counsel's failures were not prejudicial given strong aggravation | Substantial probability of life rather than death if mitigators presented |
| Standard of review and AEDPA relevance | Doe | Pre-AEDPA standards apply; de novo review | Pre-AEDPA standards applied; de novo review for guilt/prejudice assessments |
| Mitigating evidence not investigated | Doe | Strategic choice not to investigate; evidence duplicative | Investigation deficient; not justified by strategy |
| Cumulative prejudice and sentencing fairness | Doe | Cumulative effect not prejudicial | Cumulative evidence would have persuaded life verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice tests for ineffective assistance)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (holding that inadequate mitigation investigation can be prejudicial when information is readily available)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (premise of investigating mitigating evidence and failure to discover can violate Sixth Amendment)
- Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1995) (mitigation investigation duties differ from guilt-phase; penalty-phase requires broader inquiry)
- Penry v. Lynch, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) (mitigation evidence required to inform sentencing; not just guilt)