Kemp v. Ryan
638 F.3d 1245
9th Cir.2011Background
- Kemp convicted in Arizona of felony first-degree murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping with a capital sentence.
- Post-conviction claims: statements to correctional officers violated Fifth and Sixth Amendments; district court denied discovery.
- Statements were made while Kemp was in custody after invoking right to counsel; defense sought suppression.
- Arizona Supreme Court held statements voluntary; rejected Miranda/Massiah-based challenges and addressed alleged homosexual-act evidence and discovery rulings.
- Federal habeas proceedings: district court denied discovery/evidentiary hearing; court later affirmed admission of statements and death-penalty eligibility based on total evidence.
- Appeal to Ninth Circuit asserts due process, suppression, and voir dire issues; court reviews under AEDPA standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of statements violated Fifth/Sixth Amendments | Kemp argues Edwards/Massiah require suppression and seeks discovery to prove elicitation. | Arizona Supreme Court reasonably applied Edwards; no deliberate elicitation; discovery not warranted. | No; statements admissible; discovery properly denied. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for death penalty | Excluding the statements would render death penalty unconstitutional under Enmund/Tison. | Statements admissible; evidence supports aggravating factors and death sentence. | Sufficient evidence supports death penalty with admissible statements. |
| Due process for homosexual bias voir dire | Court should have allowed re-voir dire on homosexual bias to ensure impartiality. | Trial court had discretion; bias inquiries not mandatory; homosexuality not central to case. | Not meritorious; no due process violation. |
| AEDPA discovery/evidentiary hearing denial | District court should grant discovery/hearing to probe jail interrogation practices. | No good cause; evidence insufficient and not a new constitutional rule. | Affirmed denial of discovery/hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (right to counsel; custodial interrogation limits)
- In re Rhod[e] Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (interrogation scope; reasonably likely to elicit)
- Bradshaw v. Maryland, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) (initiation of interrogation; routine custodial inquiries)
- Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986) (Massiah rights; deliberate elicitation)
- Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) (voir dire discretion; prejudice considerations)
- Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973) (racial bias voir dire; discretion of court)
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) (death penalty for participants in felony murder)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) (major participation and reckless indifference; Enmund-Tison standard)
- Montej[o] v. Louisiana, 129 S. Ct. 2079 (2009) (preclusion/compatibility of counsel-rights with Miranda framework)
- Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589 (1976) (voir dire and pretrial exposure to prejudice; discretion)