Sechrest v. Baker
816 F. Supp. 2d 1017
D. Nev.2011Background
- Ricky Sechrest, Nevada prisoner, was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of first-degree kidnapping, with two death sentences and two life terms without parole.
- This federal habeas action, filed in 1992, is before the district court on remand from the Ninth Circuit to address claims about conviction and sentencing, including relief on the death sentences.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded certain claims; the panel ordered relief on the death sentences but denied relief on remanded conviction-based claims.
- Following remand, Sechrest filed a fourth amended petition raising numerous Ground 2 (ineffective assistance of counsel) claims and other grounds; the court evaluated merits under pre-AEDPA standards.
- The court granted relief on Ground 1 (death sentences) and Ground 5 (executive clemency-related comments), and denied relief on Ground 2 and many other grounds, while granting a limited certificate of appealability on Ground 4A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether death sentences must be vacated or resentenced | Sechrest seeks resentencing and relief on his death sentences. | Respondents oppose relief, contending convictions and sentence were lawful aside from remanded issues. | Habeas relief granted for death sentences; resentencing ordered or death sentences vacated. |
| Are Grounds 2A–2N (ineffective assistance and related issues) meritless | Sechrest asserts multiple ineffective-assistance claims (e.g., Sportsman testimony, hair evidence, photographs, voir dire, etc.). | Respondents contended trial and appellate performance met constitutional standards; many claims are meritless or moot. | Grounds 2A–2N denied in substantial part; no real prejudice shown; many subclaims denied; limited evidentiary hearing denied. |
| Whether the prosecutorial misconduct grounds (4A–4H) and cumulative claims (4I) warrant relief | Sechrest alleges multiple improper prosecutorial remarks biased the trial. | Prosecutorial comments were within bounds or not prejudicial given strong evidence of guilt. | Ground 4A–4H denied; Ground 4I denied rebutting cumulative prejudice; no Brecht-harmful impact found given strong guilt evidence. |
| Whether Ground 5 (court sua sponte clemency comments) warrants relief | The court failed to object to prosecutor's inflammatory clemency-related remarks. | Comments were improper but not sufficiently prejudicial to affect the outcome. | Ground 5 granted; death sentences relief consistent with Ninth Circuit directive. |
| Whether to grant a certificate of appealability on particular grounds | Some issues warrant appellate review due to potential constitutional errors. | Only select issues merit appellate review; others are procedurally barred or resolved. | Certificate of appealability granted as to Ground 4A. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hall v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (guidance on jury instructions and evidentiary issues)
- Ramirez v. Hatcher, 136 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir.1998) (standard for evaluating reasonable doubt instructions)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (presumption that jurors follow court instructions; rules for evaluating prejudice)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless error standard for habeas cases)
- Hayes v. Ayers, 632 F.3d 500 (9th Cir.2011) (framework for change-of-venue and pretrial publicity in due process analysis)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (approach to evaluating prejudice from pretrial publicity in voting venue)