Schurz v. Schriro, 730 F.3d 812

Schurz murdered Jonathan Bahe by dousing him with gasoline and setting him on fire during a dispute over beer and money.
Bahe survived initial injuries but died from burns; Schurz was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death after the judge found an especially heinous and depraved aggravating factor.
Schurz pursued state post-conviction relief (PCR) unsuccessfully before filing a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel.
The district court denied relief; Schurz challenged on appeal, arguing trial counsel failed to develop substantial mitigating evidence.
The panel reviews the IAC claim de novo or under AEDPA standards and concludes the evidence presented was either cumulative or not reasonably likely to affect the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel's performance was deficient in presenting mitigation	Schurz argued counsel failed to develop significant mitigation.	Ryan argued mitigation was already extensively presented and additional evidence was cumulative or speculative.	No deficient performance established; evidence was cumulative or not reasonably likely to affect sentencing.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Samayoa v. Ayers, 649 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2011) (reweighing mitigators against aggravators for prejudice)
Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447 (U.S. 2009) (prejudice assessment in capital sentencing)