Robert Jones, Jr. v. Charles Ryan
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17210
9th Cir.2012Background
- Jones was convicted in Arizona state court of six murders and sentenced to death in 1998; he was also convicted of related offenses (first-degree attempted murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery, first-degree burglary).
- The prosecution’s case largely rested on co-defendant Scott Nordstrom’s testimony, plus corroborating statements from Lana Irwin and David Evans, linking Jones to the Moon Smoke Shop and Union Hall murders.
- The Arizona PCR court denied relief on prosecutorial misconduct claims and found no ineffective assistance; the district court denied habeas relief and rejected an ineffective-assistance theory as cause.
- Jones sought a COA and expansion to include ineffective-assistance claims related to prosecutorial misconduct; the court allowed an expanded COA on specific trial-counsel ineffectiveness allegations.
- The Ninth Circuit applied AEDPA standards, reviewed the state court decision, and affirmed the denial of habeas relief, including upholding most prosecutorial-misconduct claims as non-prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct due process violation | Jones argues White suborned false testimony and misled about evidence. | State contends any tested misstatements were not material and did not deny a fair trial. | No due process violation; misconduct not material to the outcome. |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not discovering inconsistencies about kicked-in door (Claim 1-A) | Jones’s counsel should have cross-examined detectives with prior statements to undermine Lana Irwin’s account. | Inconsistencies were minor and not material to the overall case. | No prejudice; ineffective assistance claim rejected. |
| Appellate counsel ineffective as cause to excuse procedural default | Jones contends appellate counsel’s failure to raise claims caused default. | Default is independent; no prejudice shown by failure to raise issue on appeal. | Appellate counsel’s conduct did not constitute cause to excuse default. |
| Brady/ suppressed exculpatory evidence (Claim 1-E etc.) | Jones alleges delayed disclosure of hat/boots and lab results violated Brady. | Disclosures were timely enough and did not prejudice fair trial. | No Brady violation; delayed disclosure did not affect trial fairness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (false evidence requires knowledge and materiality for due process violation)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality of false testimony for due process)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1986) (due-process standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (U.S. 1974) (prosecutorial misstatements and fair trial safeguards)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (test for ineffective assistance of counsel (performance and prejudice))
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (U.S. 1983) (certificate of appealability standard)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. 2003) (COA requires substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (standard for judging COA under AEDPA)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (U.S. 1991) (procedural-default and cause-and-prejudice)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence)
- Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2005) (materiality standard for false testimony (en banc))
- Sexton v. Cozner, 679 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2012) (prosecutorial misconduct and procedural default considerations)