Richard Clark v. Kevin Chappell
936 F.3d 944
9th Cir.2019Background
- In 1985 Richard Dean Clark (then 21) was convicted in California of first-degree murder and rape of a 15-year-old; physical evidence and three confessions (one taped) tied him to the crimes.
- Clark’s trial (1987) featured a defense theory of drug-fueled “rage reaction” and presented extensive mitigating life-history evidence at penalty phase; jury returned death sentence.
- Pre-trial, Dr. Peter Mayland (defense psychiatrist) testified at a suppression hearing and later some of his statements were used at trial to impeach defense experts.
- Post-conviction, juror Frederick Barnes declared he consulted a minister about the death penalty during trial; the state later produced an investigator’s declaration with additional details.
- Clark filed federal habeas (pre-AEDPA filing date), raising 16 claims (6 certified on appeal): ineffective assistance (multiple theories), juror misconduct, failure to investigate fetal-alcohol/traumatic-birth mitigation, failure to pursue an alternative-suspect theory (Dino), and prosecutorial nondisclosures (including the Manda Report and prosecutor notes).
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of most claims, vacated and remanded the juror-misconduct claim for application of Godoy v. Spearman, and denied relief on Brady, Strickland-based, conflict-of-interest, and cumulative-error claims.
Issues
| Issue | Clark's Argument | Chappell's (State) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for advising rejection of plea | Allen gave poor advice and pushed Clark to reject life-without-parole plea | Clark had multiple counsel with conflicting advice; ultimate decision was Clark’s | Denied — no ineffective assistance because Clark received information from multiple attorneys and made the choice himself |
| 2. Juror misconduct (Barnes consulted minister) | Communication with minister during trial prejudiced impartiality and death verdict | Contact was harmless/non-prejudicial; district court had rejected presumption | VACATED & REMANDED — district court must apply Godoy two-step framework to decide whether presumption of prejudice arises and, if so, whether state proves harmlessness |
| 3. Ineffective assistance for calling Dr. Mayland at suppression hearing | Calling Mayland without full knowledge and allowing his trial-use waived privileges harmed defense | Calling Mayland was reasonable; any deficiency was non-prejudicial given confessions and other evidence | Denied — court found counsel’s choice deficient in part but no Strickland prejudice shown |
| 4. Ineffective assistance for preparing/presenting expert testimony | Counsel failed to prepare experts re: Beaber letter, Mayland statements, Drs. Roberts and Raffle | Experts were adequately prepared; tactical choices defensible | Denied — no prejudice from alleged preparation failures |
| 5. Failure to investigate/present fetal-alcohol / traumatic-birth mitigation | Post-conviction experts show additional prenatal/birth trauma evidence that counsel should have developed at penalty phase | Counsel presented extensive life-history mitigation; additional material would be cumulative | Denied — performance not objectively unreasonable under 1987 standards; evidence largely cumulative |
| 6. Failure to investigate/argue alternative suspect (Dino) and Brady re: Dino | Dino had motive/opportunity and undisclosed favorable/prosecutorial notes that would impeach him | Dino theory contradicted Clark’s confessions; physical evidence tied Clark not Dino; Brady material immaterial | Denied — counsel reasonably rejected weak third-party theory; nondisclosures not material under Brady |
| 7. Brady: Manda Report and prosecutor notes withheld | Manda Report shows earlier autopsy timing; notes show officers tried to calm Clark, undermining confession reliability | Evidence would not have created reasonable probability of different outcome given taped confession and other proof | Denied — no reasonable probability the result would differ |
| 8. Conflict of interest (Massini/Brown) | Massini’s DA campaign and Public Defender office’s prior representation of witnesses created actual conflicts affecting strategy | No actual conflict shown; co-counsel Allen provided vigorous, independent defense; any conflicts waived or harmless | Denied — Mickens standard not satisfied; no adverse effect shown |
| 9. Cumulative error | Combined trial errors denied fair trial | Errors were individually and cumulatively harmless in light of strong evidence | Denied — cumulative errors do not undermine confidence in outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Godoy v. Spearman, 861 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (two-step Mattox/Remmer framework for outside juror contacts; presumption of prejudice and state’s burden to prove harmlessness)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard: deficiency and prejudice)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (presumption of prejudice where juror contact with outside party is shown; government must prove harmlessness after hearing)
- Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (1892) (external communications to jurors in capital cases undermine impartiality and may invalidate verdict)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (actual conflict-of-interest standard: defendant must show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s suppression of favorable material is a due-process violation when evidence is material to guilt or punishment)