686 F.3d 1130
9th Cir.2012Background
- Scott, an Arizona death-row inmate, challenged his federal habeas petition after an earlier remand allowed new mitigation evidence.
- At trial, counsel did not present evidence of head injuries or brain dysfunction as mitigating factors.
- The district court ruled that failure to investigate those head injuries was not prejudicial, denying relief.
- On remand, the district court admitted new neurological evidence and found no prejudice despite present brain-damage testimony.
- This court previously remanded for an evidentiary hearing and to address the merits of the ineff ective assistance claim.
- The court ultimately affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, applying Strickland and related standards to assess prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prejudice from failure to present brain-damage evidence | Scott sought relief; head injuries could mitigate | Steinle’s conduct not prejudicial given evidence of his participation | No prejudice; mitigation evidence would not have changed outcome |
| Standard of review for ineffective assistance claims | Review de novo on merits | Apply Strickland framework and defer to district court findings | Merits reviewed de novo; factual findings reviewed for abuse of discretion |
| Effect of new neurological evidence on sentencing outcome | New evidence could sway sentencing | Evidence insufficient to overcome egregious conduct | Not prejudicial; similar conclusions under present record |
| Impact of confession and active role on outcome | Confession suggests lack of prejudice | Confession supports culpability independently of mitigation | Trial evidence supported death sentence despite mitigation evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Lambright v. Schriro, 490 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2007) (prejudice inquiry for death-penalty sentencing)
- Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2002) (de novo review when no state-court merits decision)
- Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2009) (scope of review when state court decisions are non-merits)
- Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; standards for reviewing factual findings)