Pizzuto v. Blades, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4856

Pizzuto was convicted of two first-degree murders, two felony murders, robbery, and grand theft, and sentenced to death for the murders in 1986.
Newly discovered evidence concerns prosecutorial and judicial misconduct surrounding James Rice’s testimony, including alleged pretrial negotiations and perjury.
Idaho Supreme Court reduced the robbery conviction as merger, others vacated/affirmed on collateral review; federal habeas petitions followed.
In 2011, Pizzuto sought to file a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), asserting seven claims based on new evidence.
The district court and Ninth Circuit evaluated whether § 2244(b)(2) suffices to permit a second petition, focusing on actual innocence and new facts.
Judge Gould’s majority denied the motion; Judge Fletcher dissented, arguing disclosure of misconduct would undermine the prosecution’s case and merits allowing the filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judicial-bias claim can be raised in a second petition	Pizzuto contends new, undiscovered facts show bias by Judge Reinhardt affecting trial.	The claim was previously presented/ defaulted; new facts do not salvage a second petition under § 2244(b)(2).	Denied; new factual grounds on a previously presented bias claim do not qualify.
Whether Pizzuto can show actual innocence under § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii)	New evidence would render guilt unlikely; Rice’s misconduct and other facts undermine the verdict.	Even crediting new allegations, other unchallenged evidence supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	Denied; sufficient non-procedural evidence remains to sustain guilt; no clear-and-convincing showing of innocence.
Whether Pizzuto can show actual innocence of the death penalty aggravators	Misconduct undermines aggravating-factor findings; no reasonable factfinder would find guilt under the death sentence.	Multiple aggravating factors and evidence support the sentence independently of misconduct claims.	Denied; one aggravating factor suffices to uphold the death sentence; no innocence showing of the aggravators.

Bible v. Schriro, 651 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) (strict AEDPA standard for second petitions)
King v. Trujillo, 638 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2011) (prima facie showing required for new claims in successive petitions)
Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) (claims previously presented are barred in successive petitions)
Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 1997) (extremely stringent AEDPA requirements)
Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744 (9th Cir. 1999) (new grounds not allowed for same legal claim)
McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (defaulted claims and second petitions; disposition on the merits)
Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2005) (due diligence and new factual predicates)
Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (1992) (death-penalty innocence standards exclude mitigating factors)
Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 1998) (procedural safeguards in death-penalty cases and actual-innocence standards)
Beaty v. Schriro, 554 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (actual innocence doesn't negate aggravating-factor findings)
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) (jury trial guarantees safeguard against bias and misconduct)