Robert Murray v. Dora Schriro
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5002
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Murray and his brother were convicted in Arizona of two first-degree murders and an armed robbery; Murray was sentenced to death and state courts affirmed.
- Significant physical and forensic evidence linked Murray to the crime scene (weapons, matching shell casings, a couch cushion from victim’s home, blood on clothing, vehicle items, footprints and tire tracks).
- During jury selection the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove the only two Hispanic venirepersons; defense raised a Batson objection which the trial court denied.
- At sentencing defense counsel (O’Neill) submitted extensive mitigation materials (pre-sentence report, letters, interviews, Dr. Potts’ psychiatric evaluation, and live testimony from family) and argued dysfunctional childhood and rehabilitative potential.
- Murray filed state post-conviction petitions, sought Ring-based relief, and later pursued habeas relief under AEDPA; the district court denied the petition and refused leave to file a second amended petition; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to prosecutor’s peremptory strikes of two Hispanic jurors | Murray: state courts unreasonably denied Batson; trial court failed to do a formal comparative juror analysis and prosecutor’s reasons were pretextual | State: prosecutor gave race-neutral reasons (family drug involvement for Pethers; personal acquaintance/indecisiveness for Alvardo); trial judge observed and credited those reasons | Held: AEDPA deference applies; failure to perform a formal comparative analysis is not per se Batson error; comparative analysis on record supports prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons and state courts’ factual findings were not unreasonable — Batson claim denied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing (mitigation investigation) | Murray: O’Neill failed to investigate and present available mitigation (school, medical, prison records; interview critical witnesses; additional mental-health experts), prejudicing sentencing | State: O’Neill conducted a pre-sentence investigation, assembled letters/interviews, obtained Dr. Potts’ evaluation, and presented family testimony; decisions were reasonable trial strategy | Held: Under Strickland and AEDPA, state-court denial was not an unreasonable application of federal law nor an unreasonable factual determination — ineffective-assistance claim denied |
| Motion to file second amended habeas petition / COA expansion | Murray: district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend and COA expansion; some claims were ambiguous as to state procedural bars | State: proposed amendments were duplicative, procedurally defaulted, futile, or not retroactive (Ring) | Held: Leave to amend would be futile; petition denial and refusal to expand COA correct — no substantial showing of constitutional violation |
| Use of Martinez to excuse procedural default for new ineffective-trial-counsel claims | Murray: Martinez could supply cause and prejudice for defaulted trial-ineffectiveness claims | State: proposed claims are not substantial (meritless) and AEDPA/Strickland preclude relief; Ring claim not retroactive | Held: Martinez does not help because Murray cannot show substantial ineffective-trial-counsel claims or prejudice; those claims remain futile/defaulted |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race-based peremptory strikes; three-step Batson framework)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (comparative juror analysis can reveal pretext; model for reviewing Batson under habeas)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (prosecutor’s explanation need not be persuasive; focus on facial race-neutrality)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (capital sentencing: jury findings on aggravating factors requirement)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (standards for adequacy of mitigation investigation)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference; unreasonable application standard)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits federal habeas review to state-court record under AEDPA)