990 F.3d 1183
9th Cir.2021Background
- In 1991 Robert Walden assaulted Vicki Blanar and Kristina Velasco (separate rapes) and in June 1991 raped and murdered Miguela Burhans; fingerprint and eyewitness evidence linked Walden to the scenes.
- Walden was tried on 14 counts in 1992, convicted on all counts (felony murder, not premeditated murder), and sentenced to death after the trial court found three aggravating factors.
- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal, rejecting challenges to joinder, eyewitness identifications, admission of crime-scene/autopsy photos, and the trial court’s consideration of mitigation.
- Post-conviction and federal habeas proceedings spanned decades; Walden withdrew five IAC claims from his federal petition to pursue them in state court, later sought to reinstate them in federal court, and the district court denied leave to amend as untimely and non-relating-back.
- The Ninth Circuit granted limited remand after Martinez v. Ryan and considered McKinney v. Ryan implications, but ultimately affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief on all certified issues.
Issues
| Issue | Walden's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of severance (joinder) | Joinder by victim was prejudicial and denied a fair trial | Evidence would have been cross-admissible; no undue prejudice | Affirmed — no federal relief; cross-admissibility forecloses unfair-trial claim |
| Admission of photographic identifications | Photo arrays and police commentary were unduly suggestive and tainted in-court IDs | Arrays were not grossly dissimilar; post-selection remarks did not render procedures suggestive | Affirmed — state court reasonably found no impermissible suggestiveness; no need to reach reliability |
| Trial court’s consideration of mitigation (causal-nexus/McKinney) | Sentencer failed properly to consider mitigating evidence; McKinney error | Claim did not allege causal-nexus error earlier; new causal-nexus theory untimely | Affirmed — McKinney did not help; claim as presented is not cognizable |
| Leave to amend to add five IAC claims; timeliness and Martinez excuse | IAC claims were withdrawn to exhaust in state court; Martinez permits PCR IAC to excuse defaults; amendment should relate back or be equitably tolled | Claims are untimely under AEDPA, do not relate back under Rule 15(c), and Walden delayed; no equitable tolling | Affirmed — amendment futile: Rule 15(c) relation-back fails, no equitable tolling; claims time-barred |
| Admission of crime-scene and autopsy photos | Photos were gratuitously gruesome and inflamed the jury; admission violated due process | Photos were relevant to disputed issues (preparation/premeditation, illustrate pathologist testimony); trial court excluded the worst images | Affirmed — no clearly established due-process rule to set aside such evidentiary rulings; state court’s factual/legal determinations reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference standard for state-court adjudications)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (two-step due-process framework for eyewitness identification)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (reliability factors for contested identifications)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability suffices to admit suggestive identification)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005) (Rule 15(c) relation-back requires common core of operative facts)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (PCR counsel IAC can establish cause to excuse procedural default)
- McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (Arizona causal-nexus rule for mitigation addressed)
- Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013) (presumption that state court adjudicated federal claim on the merits)
- Holley v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (no clearly established Supreme Court rule that admission of prejudicial evidence alone violates due process)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas does not lie for state-law evidentiary errors)