People v. Booth
3 Cal. App. 5th 1284
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- 1992 gang-related 7-Eleven shooting left one victim dead; investigation identified several suspects but produced no charges for 19 years.
- Ellis Bradford, an eyewitness who told police Booth was not among the shooters, became unavailable by the time charges were filed in 2011.
- In 2011 Booth was charged with first-degree murder and gang enhancements; Tommy Haslip later pleaded to manslaughter and testified that Booth shot the victims.
- Trial counsel did not move to dismiss based on the 19-year precharging delay; Booth was tried, acquitted of first-degree murder, convicted of second-degree murder, and sentenced to an indeterminate life term.
- Booth filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance for failure to seek dismissal for precharging delay (among other claims); the trial court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing but found the case close.
- The Court of Appeal granted habeas relief, holding counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss due to precharging delay, concluding prejudice from Bradford’s loss outweighed the justification for delay and ordering a new trial (with directions on presenting Bradford’s recorded statements if retried).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Booth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to move to dismiss based on precharging delay | Motion would have been meritless because Bradford was not credible and delay was justified by investigative resource limits | Failure to move was deficient because Bradford’s unavailability (a favorable, material witness) resulted from the 19-year delay and likely prejudiced the defense | Counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss; prejudice shown and a new trial ordered |
| Whether precharging delay violated due process (balancing prejudice vs. justification) | Delay was justified by lack of investigative resources and absence of bad faith | Delay caused loss of a material witness (Bradford), impairing defense and undermining a fair trial | Balancing favored dismissal motion: prejudice substantial given weakness of prosecution’s case; likely would have succeeded |
| Whether Bradford’s recorded statements may be used at retrial to mitigate lost-witness prejudice | Admission problematic (hearsay and impeachment issues); state should be allowed to retry | Admission of Bradford’s preserved statements is necessary to cure prejudice from his unavailability | Remedy: new trial; trial court may admit Bradford’s recorded statements or otherwise present their substance to jury consistent with fairness |
| Scope of remedy for ineffective assistance (dismissal vs. retrial with alternative proof) | Complete dismissal unnecessary; state invested resources and retrial is permissible | A remedy must neutralize constitutional taint without giving unwarranted windfall to the prosecution | Court ordered new trial and directed that Bradford’s preserved statements be made available to satisfy due process while allowing prosecution to retry |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (Speedy-trial right attaches at charge/arrest; role of precharging delay)
- United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (Due process protection against oppressive preaccusation delay)
- People v. Abel, 53 Cal.4th 891 (Prejudice/justification balancing for precharging delay)
- People v. Nelson, 43 Cal.4th 1242 (Deference to resource allocation but scrutiny where prejudice shown)
- People v. Cordova, 62 Cal.4th 104 (Justification where new evidence later developed)
- Conrad, 145 Cal.App.4th 1175 (Remedy: permitting admission of lost-witness statements at retrial to mitigate prejudice)
- Wilson v. Henry, 185 F.3d 986 (Counsel’s failure to bring dispositive motion — prejudice standard)