Lockett v. Workman
711 F.3d 1218
10th Cir.2013Background
- Lockett was convicted in Oklahoma state court of 19 counts including murder and related offenses; death sentence imposed for first-degree murder and long prison terms for non-capital counts.
- OCCA affirmed convictions and sentence and denied post-conviction relief.
- Lockett filed §2254 petition raising 15 grounds; district court denied relief but granted COA on seven grounds.
- District court granted COA on issues including Turner testimony, victim impact, Dr. Call, great risk aggravator, and cumulative error.
- On direct appeal, OCCA found some errors but deemed them harmless; Supreme Court denial of certiorari.
- Petitioner sought to expand COA; this court ultimately reviews seven COA issues and additional requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limitation of Ms. Turner’s mitigation testimony | Lockett argues restriction violated mitigating rights | State concedes error but argues harmlessness | Harmless error; no substantial impact on sentencing |
| Admission of victim impact testimony | Testimony violated Eighth Amendment by including condemnation of defendant | State maintains admissibility under Payne; not unconstitutional per se | Unconstitutional portions violated Booth/Payne framework but overall harmless |
| Dr. Call’s rebuttal testimony during penalty phase | Admission violated Sixth Amendment because scope exceeded | Admissible under Estelle/Buchanan given defendant placed mental health at issue | Admissible under AEDPA deferential review; no reversal on this basis |
| Sufficiency of evidence for great risk aggravator | Evidence insufficient to show risk to multiple victims | Evidence sufficient under Jackson standard and OCCA precedent | Evidence sufficient; great risk aggravator upheld |
| Cumulative error in penalty phase | Errors collectively prejudicial | Harmless given extensive aggravation and mitigation | Cumulative errors deemed harmless under Brecht standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1987) (victim impact statements must not influence punishment)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1991) (limits on victim impact evidence but allows non-judgmental descriptions of victims)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard in direct appeals)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1993) (harmlessness standard for collateral review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (Sixth Amendment; jury must find aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) ( Sixth Amendment limits on mental-health testimony and physician-patient privilege)
- Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1987) (prosecution may rebut defendant’s mental-health evidence if defense opened the issue)