Roger Murray v. Dora Schriro
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5003
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Roger Murray challenges his death-sentence after conviction for murder and armed robbery in Arizona, with extensive trial evidence tying him and his brother to the killings; multiple weapons, bullets, and blood at the scene and in defendant’s clothing linked to Roger; jury found both murders and robbery with three aggravating factors; district court denied habeas relief; direct appeal affirmed; post-conviction and federal habeas proceedings followed; issues include jury fairness, trial conduct, and adequacy of mitigation; AEDPA governs review; appellate court conducts independent review of the state court decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change of venue premised on pretrial publicity | Murray argues presumed/actual prejudice warranted venue change | Schriro contends Arizona Supreme Court reasonably applied law; publicity not extreme | Not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law |
| Denial of fair cross-section in jury venire | Murray asserts underrepresentation of distinctive groups from jury pool | Schriro defers to state court findings under Duren; no systemic exclusion | Not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strikes | Murray challenges race-neutrality of strikes | Schriro upheld Batson analysis; reasons race-neutral | Not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law |
| denial of request to revisit crime scene (inspecting evidence) | Murray contends material and favorable evidence was suppressed | Arizona court properly balanced materiality and necessity | Not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel - sleeping through trial (IAC) | Roger alleges counsel slept through substantial portions; prejudicial | PCR court credited testimony denying sleep; evidence insufficient | Not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 2896 (2010) (impartial jury; presumption of prejudice requires extreme publicity)
- Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 373 (1977) (pretrial publicity; totality of circumstances; capital cases not inherently higher standard)
- Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) (actual prejudice; voir dire effectiveness in assessing juror bias)
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (right to fair cross-section; distinctive groups)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prosecution must provide race-neutral explanations for strikes)
- Estelle v. Williams, 424 U.S. 501 (1976) (in-custody status; jury handling concerns)
- Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605 (1982) (lesser-included offense instruction when supported by evidence)
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) (participation in felony; death penalty rules for accomplices)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) (major participation with reckless indifference supports death penalty)
- Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980) (limitations on lesser offense instructions; jury rationality)
- Befer v. Lopez, - (-) ((omitted placeholder))