Sivak v. Hardison
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18568
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Dixie Wilson was murdered during a robbery at the Baird Oil gas station in Garden City, Idaho, in 1981; Sivak and Bainbridge were involved and the station’s cash was stolen.
- Sivak and Bainbridge were tried separately; Sivak was convicted of felony murder and other offenses, and sentenced to death; Bainbridge faced a separate case.
- During Sivak’s penalty phase, the defense presented mitigating evidence; the state emphasized Bainbridge’s role and Sivak’s own culpability.
- The State relied on jailhouse informants Leytham and Grierson, whose testimony claimed Sivak confessed; Leytham later lied about motives and benefits from the prosecution.
- Letters and communications among prosecutors, Leytham, and parole authorities revealed a potential quid pro quo for Leytham’s cooperation, implicating Napue/Brady violations.
- The district court denied relief; the Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding Napue Brady violations invalidated Sivak’s penalty-phase verdict and remanding for a penalty-phase retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady/Napue violations established | Sivak argues the state suppressed impeachment evidence and allowed perjured testimony to stand. | State contends any errors were harmless or precluded by procedural rules. | Napue/Brady violations proven; penalty-phase prejudiced; death sentence vacated and remanded for new penalty trial. |
| Guilt-phase prejudice from Napue/Brady | False Leytham testimony could have changed guilt verdict. | Evidence against Sivak was strong and other witnesses corroborated guilt. | No reversible prejudice to guilt phase; Napue/Brady violations did not alter guilt verdict. |
| Penalty-phase prejudice from Leytham/Fazio evidence | Correcting Leytham’s perjury or disclosing letters would undermine the sentencing findings. | Any impact was minimal or outweighed by other evidence. | There is a reasonable probability the sentencing outcome would have differed if Leytham’s false testimony and related letters had been corrected. |
| Gardner ex parte information | Judge relied on ex parte information about Sivak’s character/relatives details. | O'Dell/Gardner standard limits, information not revealing confidential data. | No Gardner violation; no due-process breach from ex parte information. |
| Double jeopardy collateral estoppel | Acquittal on premeditated murder precluded death-penalty findings. | Verdicts were harmonizable; no necessarily decided issue precluded sentence. | Not barred by double jeopardy; sentencing judge could consider aggravators based on the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (false evidence by state agents requires reversal if material)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- Bagley v. Lumpkin, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality/prejudice standard for Brady)
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1970) (collateral estoppel in collateral proceedings; jury acquittal)
- Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1977) (due process limits on reliance on secret information in sentencing)
- O'Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1997) (Gardner narrowed to secrecy of information in sentencing)
- Jackson v. Barnes, 513 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2008) (Napue/Brady material considered cumulatively; prejudice assessment)