Leavitt v. Arave
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9944
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Leavitt murdered Danette Elg in a particularly brutal manner; prior counsel obtained two court-appointed experts and an MRI was denied at the original sentencing.
- On remand, Parmenter chose a mitigation strategy focused on portraying Leavitt as a good person rather than pursuing mental-health mitigation.
- Post-remand, a district court granted a conditional writ after MRI evidence (white matter hyperintensities) suggested possible organic brain injury.
- The district court held Parmenter’s performance deficient and prejudicial, granting habeas relief; the Ninth Circuit reversed in part, addressing the ineffective-assistance claims de novo.
- The majority held Parmenter’s decisions were within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance and that any potential MRI evidence would not have altered the death sentence given the case’s circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parmenter’s failure to renew an MRI request was deficient performance | Leavitt | Parmenter acted reasonably given prior denials and evidence | No deficiency; strategic, informed decision |
| Whether Parmenter’s performance prejudiced Leavitt | Leavitt | Prejudice not established; MRI unlikely to change outcome | No prejudice; expected denial or no impact on sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (right to a competent psychiatric examination when mental condition significant)
- West v. Ryan, 608 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2010) (eclectic medical findings may not require further testing if prior results are not strongly suggestive)
- Wong v. Belmontes, 130 S. Ct. 383 (2009) (illustrates when mitigating evidence may be insufficient to alter verdict given gruesome crime)
- Pinholster v. Cullen, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (reaffirms deferential review of attorney performance and tactical decisions)
- Summerlin v. Schriro, 427 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2005) (duty to investigate mental impairment mitigation; standard for prejudice)