Richard Greenway v. Charles Ryan
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14565
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Richard Greenway was convicted in 1989 of the 1988 execution-style murders of a mother and daughter and sentenced to death.
- At sentencing Greenway presented statutory and nonstatutory mitigation: age (19), an IQ of ~72, expert testimony, and work-history evidence; the trial court found only age mitigating.
- The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the record, discussed the evidence (including expert testimony that Greenway was borderline but capable), cited Lockett, and affirmed that only age warranted mitigation.
- Greenway filed a federal habeas petition; the Ninth Circuit initially rejected his Lockett/Eddings claim but remanded some issues in Greenway v. Schriro, 653 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2011).
- After the en banc decision in McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2015), which held Arizona courts frequently applied an impermissible causal-nexus test, the panel stayed Greenway pending McKinney and then ordered supplemental briefing on McKinney’s impact.
- The Ninth Circuit (per curiam) held the Arizona trial and supreme courts did consider Greenway’s mitigation evidence and did not apply an impermissible causal-nexus rule; any error would have been harmless given substantial aggravating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McKinney conclusively establishes Arizona applied a causal‑nexus test in Greenway | McKinney shows Arizona consistently used the causal‑nexus test, so we need not reexamine Greenway | McKinney did not list Greenway; this case must be assessed on its own record | Not bound by McKinney to presume error; Greenway’s case must be examined on its own record |
| Whether the Arizona Supreme Court applied an impermissible causal‑nexus test in Greenway | Arizona excluded low IQ and other mitigation for lack of causal connection to the crime | The Arizona opinion considered and weighed the IQ evidence and other mitigation; it did not exclude them as a matter of law | Arizona court did not apply an impermissible causal‑nexus test; it considered all mitigation |
| Whether the trial court excluded mitigation for lack of causal nexus | Trial court’s language allegedly limited mitigation to factors causally tied to the offense | Trial court expressly considered statutory and nonstatutory mitigation and weighed them | Trial court considered all mitigating factors and found only age worthy of weight |
| If error occurred, whether it was harmless on habeas review | Any exclusion of mitigation was structural or substantial and required relief | Even if causal‑nexus exclusion occurred, aggravating factors overwhelmingly outweigh mitigation; Brecht standard applies | Any error was harmless; no substantial and injurious effect on sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) (Eighth Amendment requires consideration of all relevant mitigating evidence)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (sentencer must consider all relevant mitigating evidence, including that showing diminished capacity)
- McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (Arizona courts had frequently applied an impermissible causal‑nexus test; clarified review approach)
- Greenway v. Schriro, 653 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2011) (earlier panel opinion addressing multiple habeas claims in Greenway’s petition)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas relief requires showing error had substantial and injurious effect on the verdict)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless‑error standard guidance for evaluating prejudice)