Schad v. Ryan, 2011 WL 5433763

Schad was convicted of first-degree murder in Arizona in 1979 and sentenced to death; after collateral review the conviction was reversed, he was retried in 1985 and again sentenced to death; federal habeas petition filed in 1998 and denied in district court (2006), leading to this appeal.
Strong circumstantial evidence tied Schad to Grove’s murder: Schad possessed Grove’s Cadillac and other property, used Grove’s credit cards and checkbook, and travelled with stolen items across multiple states before and after Grove’s disappearance.
Arizona state authorities failed to disclose three letters written in 1979 by a detective and a prosecutor to aid a California witness (Duncan) in an unrelated case, raising a Brady/Napue issue about impeachment material not disclosed to defense.
District court denied habeas relief on guilt and sentencing claims, including an evidentiary hearing request for new mitigating evidence, concluding Schad failed to show prejudice or deficiency; issues on mitigating evidence and nexus were appealed.
The Ninth Circuit reviews de novo the sufficiency of the evidence and applies AEDPA standards to state-court factual findings; ultimately the court affirms the district court’s denial of habeas relief on conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady prejudice due to nondisclosure of letters	Schad argues nondisclosure prejudiced trial	State contends prejudice minimal given other impeachment evidence	No relief; no reasonable probability of different result.
Ineffective assistance at guilt phase	Failure to locate Sprayberry testimony prejudiced Schad	Counsel’s diligence was sufficient; no prejudice shown	No relief; performance not deficient.
Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder	Evidence insufficient to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt	Evidence sufficient to prove identity and guilt	Sustained; evidence sufficient.
Mitigating evidence standard and nexus	State court used improper nexus; violated Eddings/Tennard	mitigated weight; nexus not required for admissibility	No constitutional error; mitigation considered and weighed appropriately.
Pecuniary gain aggravating factor	Motive of pecuniary gain not proven by evidence	Circumstantial proof supports motive	Factor rationally supported; death penalty sustained.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose exculpatory/impeachment material)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (false testimony and prosecutorial responsibility)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (prejudice standard for Brady material in habeas)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (prejudice from suppression; reasonable probability standard)
Barker v. Fleming, 423 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2005) (impeachment value duplicative of trial evidence; not prejudicial)
Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 2005) (immunity for a witness as material impeaching evidence)
Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (U.S. 2004) (nexus requirement rejected for mitigating evidence)
Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37 (U.S. 2004) (rejected nexus between mitigation and crime for admissibility)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (mitigating evidence not limited to causal connection to offense)
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978) (mitigation must be fully considered; no statutory preclusion)
Newell, 212 Ariz. 389, 132 P.3d 833 (2006) (Arizona rule on nexus and mitigating evidence weight)
Styers v. Schriro, 547 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2008) (PTSD mitigation not weighed away when improperly disregarded)
Lambright v. Schriro, 490 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2007) (nexus/mitigation evaluation misapplication)