People v. McDowell, 54 Cal. 4th 395

Background

Capital defendant McDowell is eligible for automatic review after second penalty retrial resulting in death sentence.
1984 conviction for first-degree murder, attempted murder, attempted rape, and burglary with knife enhancements and age-based victim enhancement; two special circumstances (felony-murder burglary and felony-murder rape); prior Florida conviction for lewd, lascivious, and indecent assault; death sentence upheld on direct appeal (McDowell I).
1997 Ninth Circuit reversed as to death sentence, ordering remand for mitigation-related corrections; new penalty retrials crown in 1999 with a verdict of death.
Second penalty retrial evidence included crime circumstances, prior acts, victim impact, and extensive defense mitigation; trial court admitted some evidence and excluded certain expert testimony.
Defendant challenges: (1) speedy-trial/due-process claims based on long post-conviction delays; (2) improper for-cause exclusions of two jurors for death-penalty views; (3) admissibility and impact of victim-impact testimony; (4) exclusion of defense expert Dr. Andrews’ mitigation testimony; (5) alleged prosecutorial misconduct; court rejects all challenges and affirms death judgment.
Court affirms judgment of death after evaluating speedy-trial and due-process defenses, jury-excusal issues, evidentiary rulings, and statutory claim challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial/due-process right during post-conviction delays	McDowell asserts multi-year delays violated speedy-trial/due process.	State delays were prejudicial by prolonging death-row suffering.	No due-process/ speedy-trial violation; delays were part of appellate/collateral process and not presumptively prejudicial.
Excusal for cause of two prospective jurors on death-penalty views	Two jurors were discharged for death-penalty attitudes; this was reversible per se.	Exclusions were improper if views could not impair duty; statements were ambiguous.	No error; trial court properly found substantial impairment to serve in penalty phase.
Victim-impact evidence and related instructions	Estrangement and family impact evidence admissible under 190.3, factor (a).	Notice and timing issues or potential prejudice/overbreadth.	Admissible; instructions correctly limited opinion of victim’s family; no reversible error.
Exclusion of Dr. Andrews’ mitigation expert testimony	Exclusion denied relevant mitigation and violated Eighth Amendment.	Expert testimony was necessary to connect childhood abuse to adult behavior.	No abuse of discretion; testimony not beyond common experience and not required; Wong/Wong-like standard not adopted here.
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments	Prosecutor misstated law and urged improper focus on prior acts.	Misstatements prejudicial and misused ‘sociopath’ term; inclusion of molestation of Thomas.	No prejudicial misconduct; jury instructions cured potential error; cumulative effect harmless.

Key Cases Cited

Chambers v. Bowersox, 157 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 1998) (delays justifiable to ensure fair, thorough review in capital cases)
Anderson v. Superior Court, 25 Cal.4th 543 (2001) (appellate delay in capital cases not cruel/unusual punishment; remittitur timing matters)
Ewell v. United States, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) (speedy-trial right is relative; delays may be permissible in post-trial review)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (balancing test for speedy-trial claims: delay length, reason, assertion, prejudice)
Loud Hawk v. United States, 474 U.S. 302 (1986) (interlocutory/pretrial delays; limits on pretrial appellate delays in speedy-trial analysis)
White v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 1996) (appellate review can safeguard rights; delays may be permissible when defendant benefited)
People v. Kelly, 42 Cal.4th 763 (2007) (deference to trial court on juror demeanor; no error in juror excusal where ambivalent statements present)