Phillips v. Ornoski
673 F.3d 1168
9th Cir.2012Background
- Phillips filed a capital habeas petition pre-AEDPA, challenging guilt-phase and penalty-phase rulings.
- District court denied relief but allowed an evidentiary hearing; later, the hearing was limited to depositions/written evidence and no live testimony.
- Phillips claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for pursuing an unlikely alibi defense without investigating alternatives.
- Phillips alleged Brady/Napue violations due to undisclosed benefits to key witness Colman and misrepresentations about an immunity agreement.
- Colman received an immunity agreement and other benefits; the prosecution allegedly misled the jury about those benefits and Colman’s expectations.
- The court ultimately vacated the special-circumstance finding that made Phillips death-eligible and remanded for possible reenactment of penalty proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidentiary hearing discretion | Phillips suffered prejudice from limited live testimony | District court acted within discretion given no new live witnesses | No abuse of discretion |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) | Counsel failed to adequately investigate alternatives to alibi | Counsel had wide tactical latitude; no constitutional duty to investigate | IAC not shown under current standard (post-Cullen) |
| Napue/Brady violations and materiality | State concealed immunity/benefits to Colman and misled jury about deals | Violations existed but were not material to guilt/penalty under standards | Napue/Brady violations were material to the special circumstance finding; vacated death sentence and remanded |
| Impact of prosecutorial misconduct | Prosecutor’s false assurances about Colman’s immunity affected credibility | Misconduct isolated to collateral issue; not reversible | Constitutional error as to special circumstance; reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2005) (unfaithful witness immunity and Napue doctrine applied)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecutor must correct or avoid false testimony)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (due process prohibits lying or withholding exculpatory information)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady materiality standard for impeachment and exculpatory evidence)
- People v. Green, 27 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1980) (robbery special circumstance and intent to rob analyzed for special finding)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (limits post-conviction evidentiary standards; impacts IAC assessment)