793 F.3d 1092
9th Cir.2015Background
- Richard Delmer Boyer was tried three times for the December 7, 1982 double murders of Francis and Aileen Harbitz; the third trial (1992) produced convictions for two counts of first‑degree murder and a death sentence.
- Physical evidence: Boyer’s blood‑stained jeans, blood from both victims, a blood‑stained buck knife, and a burned jacket were recovered from Boyer’s residence.
- Key eyewitness/testimony: John Kennedy and Cynthia Cornwell testified under immunity about Boyer’s conduct the evening of the murders; Linda Weissinger later identified Boyer as the suspect in an alleged 1980 murder (Compton) introduced at penalty phase.
- Mental‑state evidence: Defense presented multiple experts concerning intoxication, possible hallucination, antisocial personality and substance abuse; later post‑conviction testing (2001) suggested organic brain damage, which Boyer argued trial counsel failed to investigate.
- Procedural posture: California Supreme Court affirmed convictions and sentence; state habeas denials followed; federal habeas petition was denied by the district court and that denial is appealed under AEDPA standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court was required to hold a live evidentiary hearing before admitting evidence of the Compton murder at penalty phase | Boyer: Phillips‑style live hearing was necessary to test the reliability of Weissinger’s ID and other proof tying him to Compton | State: No clearly established Supreme Court law requires a live preliminary hearing in these circumstances; trial held multiple hearings and Weissinger was cross‑examined | Court: No clearly established federal law mandated a live hearing; state court’s admission was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent (affirmed) |
| Sufficiency of evidence tying Boyer to the Compton murder (Jackson claim) | Boyer: Weissinger’s prior misidentifications and inconsistent IDs rendered the evidence insufficient and unreliable | State: Single eyewitness ID can suffice; Weissinger explained her certainty and other circumstantial corroboration existed | Court: Under Jackson and AEDPA’s double deference, fairminded jurists could disagree; state court’s determination was reasonable (claim denied) |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to investigate organic brain damage (guilt and penalty phases) | Boyer: Post‑conviction tests (2001) show severe organic brain damage; counsel should have pursued further testing (PET, neuropsychological) to support insanity/unconsciousness defenses | State: Counsel conducted extensive mental‑health investigation; multiple experts and court‑appointed doctors examined Boyer and found no convincing organic impairment; strategic decision to forgo more testing was reasonable | Court: State court reasonably applied Strickland; counsel’s investigation was adequate and Boyer failed to show prejudice (claim denied) |
| Constitutional challenge to California death penalty scheme / prosecutorial discretion | Boyer: Scheme fails to narrow death‑eligible class and discretion to seek death is unconstitutional | State: Precedent upholds California’s statutory narrowing and prosecutorial charging discretion | Court: Claims foreclosed by binding precedent (Mayfield/Karis/Gregg/Proffitt); no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (framework for AEDPA deference)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (standard for unreasonable application and "fairminded jurists" test)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (Due Process does not require pretrial reliability hearing absent police‑arranged suggestiveness)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (totality‑of‑circumstances reliability test for eyewitness ID)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (eyewitness reliability is the linchpin for admissibility)
- Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341 (no per se constitutional requirement for out‑of‑presence hearings on ID admissibility)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (prejudice standard and AEDPA interplay)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (harmlessness and when instructional error violates due process)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (upholding capital sentencing frameworks)