Ortiz v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25076
8th Cir.2011Background
- Ortiz is a Colombian national and federal prisoner sentenced to death in a multi-defendant drug-murder case; the government sought the death penalty and Ortiz faced guilt and penalty-phase proceedings in 2000; Ortiz moved under 28 U.S.C. §2255 alleging Atkins (mental retardation) and ineffective assistance of counsel; district court held an evidentiary hearing in 2007 with testimony from experts, lay witnesses, and defense and prosecution counsel; the district court credited the government-led expert (Vasquez) over Ortiz’s proffered expert (Weinstein) on mental retardation and denied relief on the §2255 claims; Ortiz appealed seeking relief and expansion of the COA, while the district court denied relief on the ineffective-assistance claim and granted a COA on Atkins; this court remands for further factual findings in light of new evidence regarding Ortiz’s driver’s-license evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ortiz is mentally retarded under Atkins. | Ortiz argues extensive evidence shows MR. | U.S. contends district court credibility determinations were correct. | Remanded for Factual Findings on Atkins evidence. |
| Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in the penalty phase. | Counsel failed to investigate background and obtain relevant witnesses. | Counsel's investigation was reasonable under Strickland. | Affirm district court's denial of the §2255 ineffective-assistance claim. |
| Whether extra-record evidence should be considered on appeal. | New declarations and records show trial-level inaccuracies. | Record should be limited to below-record evidence; untimely evidence should be struck. | Record enlarged to include driver’s-license documents; remaining untimely evidence struck; remand allowed for other untimely evidence. |
| Whether the district court erred in Daubert analysis of Dr. Weinstein's testimony. | Daubert ruling violated Ortiz’s rights to contest reliability. | Ortiz had opportunity to contest and the district court made alternate credibility finding. | No reversible Daubert error; remand reserved for Atkins considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (Eighth Amendment capital punishment prohibition for mentally retarded)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (duty to investigate mitigating evidence; standard from ABA guidelines)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping for expert testimony; admissibility standards)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (state must avoid obviously prejudicial evidence; negligence in disclosure standards)
- Miller v. Baker Implement Co., 439 F.3d 407 (8th Cir. 2006) (Daubert ruling not always requiring a separate hearing; opportunity to be heard)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (limits on evidence presented in federal habeas review; focus on record)