Shinn v. Kayer
592 U.S. 111
SCOTUS2020Background
- In 1994 George Kayer murdered Delbert Haas; he planned the killing, shot Haas twice, stole property, and later sold stolen items; convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses.
- At sentencing the judge found two statutory aggravators: a prior serious offense and murder for pecuniary gain; only one nonstatutory mitigator (importance to his son); Kayer was sentenced to death.
- Kayer declined to cooperate with mitigation investigators and refused a continuance before sentencing.
- In postconviction proceedings Kayer presented new mitigation evidence (alcohol and gambling addiction, recent heart attack, bipolar disorder diagnosis, and adverse family history); the state postconviction court held a 9‑day hearing but denied relief under Strickland (no deficient performance and, alternatively, no prejudice).
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding counsel performed deficiently and that the new mitigation likely would have changed the outcome; Arizona sought certiorari.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Ninth Circuit judgment, and remanded—holding the Ninth Circuit failed to apply AEDPA’s deferential standard and that fair‑minded jurists could disagree about prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Ninth Circuit improperly grant habeas by ignoring AEDPA deference to state-court Strickland ruling? | Ninth Circuit: state court unreasonably applied Strickland and relief warranted. | Arizona: AEDPA requires deference; panel substituted its judgment for state court. | SCOTUS: Ninth Circuit erred; AEDPA requires deferential review; vacated judgment. |
| Did newly developed mitigation create a reasonable probability of a different sentence? | Kayer: bipolar disorder, addictions, heart attack, family history would likely alter weighing. | Arizona: mitigation was weak; strong aggravators (pecuniary gain, armed prior burglary) outweigh it. | SCOTUS: fair‑minded jurists could disagree; state court’s no‑prejudice finding not unreasonable. |
| What is the correct standard when reviewing state Strickland rulings on federal habeas? | Kayer: federal court should assess prejudice under Strickland as applied to the record. | Arizona: apply Strickland but with AEDPA deference—federal courts cannot substitute their view. | SCOTUS: reaffirmed Strickland and AEDPA; federal courts must ask whether state ruling was beyond fairminded disagreement. |
| Which state decision counts as the last adjudication on the merits for §2254(d) review? | Ninth Circuit: treated the Superior Court decision as the last reasoned ruling. | Arizona: consideration of appellate denial presumption required; review governed by Wilson v. Sellers. | SCOTUS: assumed without deciding Superior Court was last reasoned decision and applied the rebuttable‑presumption approach; outcome unaffected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA requires decision be beyond fairminded disagreement)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits federal evidentiary review and explains "reasonable probability" language)
- Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (federal courts may not substitute their judgment for state courts under AEDPA)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (state court applied correct legal principle to facts under AEDPA)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (describes "fairminded jurist" inquiry)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (Strickland is a demanding standard)
- Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (capital sentencing requires individualized determination)