Sanborn v. Parker
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25912
6th Cir.2010Background
- Sanborn murdered and sexually assaulted Heilman in 1983, leading to a capital-murder trial and convictions on guilt and a death sentence for the murder.
- At the second trial, the defense sought to present an extreme emotional disturbance (EED) defense; the prosecution obtained a court order for the state to examine Sanborn with Dr. Skelton, and Dr. Johnson attended.
- Dr. Skelton testified at the penalty phase about Sanborn’s version changes and the possible coercion by defense counsel; the testimony related to an alleged triggering event for EED.
- Kentucky trial court prohibited Dr. Johnson from testifying about the triggering event at guilt, but allowed Drs. Johnson and Skelton to testify at the penalty phase; the defense argued this violated Sixth Amendment rights to counsel.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld admission of Skelton’s testimony under an Estelle exception, distinguishing it from Estelle v. Smith and holding no constitutional error.
- The district court granted habeas relief on the Skelton issue, concluding intrusion into the attorney-client relationship and prejudice; on appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed that relief and affirmed, with other claims remaining for consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skelton's penalty-phase testimony violated the Sixth Amendment | Sanborn argued intrusion into attorney-client relationship prejudiced trial | Parker contends no Weatherford violation; Kentucky court properly applied Estelle exception | No reversible Sixth Amendment error; admission not contrary to Weatherford; any error harmless |
| Whether the Kentucky Supreme Court's ruling was contrary to Weatherford and applicable federal law | Court relied on Estelle dicta to find no error | Estelle exception governs; decision not contrary to federal law | Not contrary to Weatherford; AEDPA standard satisfied; no habeas relief on this ground |
| Whether Reverend Brown's testimony violated attorney-client/priest-penitent privileges and how it affected due process | Privileges were violated and admission tainted fairness | state-law privilege determination not a federal constitutional violation; any error not due process violation | Not a due-process violation; state-law privilege ruling not contrary to federal law |
| Whether the evidence at the second trial was constitutionally sufficient to prove the aggravating factors of rape or sodomy | Brown's testimony plus other evidence sufficed to prove alive during penetration | Sufficiency should be evaluated de novo under McDaniel; corroboration not required | Sufficiency not shown to be objectively unreasonable; AEDPA deference applied; Brown's testimony considered in sufficiency analysis |
| Whether Sanborn received ineffective assistance of counsel at guilt phase | Counsel failed to anticipate admissibility issues and undermine EED strategy | Counsel reasonably pursued EED defense; strategy was sound; not deficient | No Strickland prejudice or deficiency; strategy reasonable; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1977) (intrusion plus prejudice required for Sixth Amendment violation)
- Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (importance of psychiatric testimony and its relation to privilege/possession of evidence)
- McDaniel v. Brown, 130 S. Ct. 665 (U.S. 2010) (sufficiency review under AEDPA afteroppose-corroboration considerations)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) ( Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes effective assistance)
- Florid a v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2004) (strategy decisions may be reasonable where they focus on penalty phase)