Smith v. Mitchell
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22603
9th Cir.2010Background
- Smith was convicted of assault on a child resulting in death in California; state appellate and California Supreme Court proceedings followed.
- Smith filed a federal habeas petition alleging constitutionally insufficient evidence; district court denied; Ninth Circuit reversed and granted the writ.
- Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration after Carey v. Musladin; on remand, Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its Jackson v. Virginia analysis.
- Brown v. Brown (McDaniel v. Brown) raised questions about considering posttrial DNA evidence and the standard of review under Jackson with AEDPA.
- Court reinstated its prior Smith decision, holding no reasonable juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on trial record; Brown did not undermine that result.
- Court emphasized the double deference under Jackson and AEDPA and described this as an extraordinary case warranting relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Brown cast doubt on Smith’s Jackson ruling? | Brown’s factual record differed; no comparable assertion of powerful guilt evidence. | Brown dictates consistency with later Supreme Court rulings; may undermine prior analysis. | Brown did not cast doubt; Smith reinstated as correct. |
| Was the trial record sufficient under Jackson to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? | Evidence failed to show guilt beyond reasonable doubt; prosecution relied on unsupported brainstem theory. | Evidence, including expert testimony, supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Insufficient evidence under Jackson; state court’s rejection unreasonable. |
| Did the court improperly consider posttrial Mueller/other evidence under Jackson? | No posttrial evidence should be considered for Jackson analysis. | Posttrial evidence relevance is constrained and not dispositive if trial record supports guilt. | Removed reliance on posttrial evidence; analysis remained based on trial record. |
| Does the AEDPA double deference affect the result here? | Double deference supports relief due to unreasonable application of Jackson. | Double deference does not bar relief where state court misapplies Jackson. | Double deference acknowledged; nonetheless Smith’s conviction deemed unreasonably applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (confirms substantial evidence standard for sufficiency review)
- Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (U.S. 2006) (reconsideration guidance on evidentiary conduct and due process)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2007) (clarifies effect of new Supreme Court decisions on prior habeas rulings)
- Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120 (U.S. 2008) (AEDPA deference considerations in habeas review)
- McDaniel v. Brown, 130 S. Ct. 665 (U.S. 2010) (DNA evidence and posttrial evidence considerations under Jackson)
- Renico v. Lett, 130 S. Ct. 1855 (U.S. 2010) (double deference concept in Jackson-AEDPA framework)