Samayoa v. Ayers
649 F.3d 919
9th Cir.2011Background
- Samayoa killed Nelia Silva and her two-year-old daughter Katherine during a 1985 burglary; body injuries were extensive and jewelry was stolen.
- Trial defense conceded guilt for two murders and burglary, seeking a penalty-phase mitigation based on brain damage to negate intent.
- Defense presented neuropsychological evidence of organic brain damage in guilt phase; at penalty phase, mitigation relied on prison conduct and family sympathy.
- California Supreme Court affirmed convictions and death sentence on direct review; later denied habeas relief on the merits of ineffective assistance claim without explanation.
- Federal district court reviewed under AEDPA, assumed possible deficient performance, but held no reasonable probability that additional childhood mitigation would change the outcome; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- Dissent argued trial counsel’s failure to investigate childhood abuse was prejudicial under Strickland and Rompilla/Wiggins lines of cases, necessitating relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failure to investigate childhood mitigation | Samayoa | Samayoa | No prejudice found (not unreasonable under Strickland) |
| Was California Supreme Court's Strickland decision reasonable | California Supreme Court erred | State court reasonable | Not contrary to or an unreasonable application |
| Standard of review under AEDPA for state-court decision | Apply deferential review | Apply objective review | De novo review for Strickland prejudice; state court not unreasonable |
| Would the new mitigateevidence likely have changed verdict | Yes, childhood abuse would sway jurors | No, brain-damage evidence already presented was more significant | California court not unreasonable in finding no likely change |
| Counsel's performance deficient in penalty phase | Yes, failed to investigate abuse | No clear deficiency; investigations conducted | Majority found not deficient; dissent disagreed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (duty to investigate background for mitigation; prejudice test)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (prejudice from failure to present mitigating history)
- Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) (mitigating history relevant to culpability)
- Wong v. Belmontes, 130 S. Ct. 383 (2009) (hard to imagine childhood mitigation overcoming brutal crime)