Welch v. Workman
639 F.3d 980
10th Cir.2011Background
- Welch was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Oklahoma for the 1994 killing of Robert Hardcastle.
- Guilt phase evidence showed Welch stabbed and beat Hardcastle while Conover attacked him; multiple eyewitness accounts supported the assault.
- At sentencing, the jury found three aggravating factors and heard extensive victim-impact testimony from Hardcastle’s family.
- Welch challenged various trial issues on direct and post-conviction review, and petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- The district court and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected most claims, and the district court denied relief; the court of appeals affirmed.
- The panel rehearing clarified de novo review of certain victim-impact issues and substituted an amended opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Conover statement | Conover's statement was admitted improperly; not within present-sense impression and violated confrontation. | OCCA deemed it harmless under Roberts and Brecht; present-sense exception applied or harmless anyway. | Harmless error; no due-process violation established |
| Prosecutorial remarks about post-arrest silence | Questions and closing remarks implicated post-arrest silence violating Doyle rules and due process. | Errors were harmless in light of overwhelming guilt and corroborating evidence. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Failure to instruct on second-degree murder | Beck/ Schad require consideration of lesser-included offenses when evidence supports them. | OCCA correctly held second-degree murder not a lesser-included offense for this case; no error. | Not contrary to clearly established law |
| Victim-impact statements | Improper victim-impact statements violated Booth/Payne by influencing sentencing and targeting defendant. | Under Payne, some victim-impact testimony is permissible; errors were harmless given strong aggravators. | Not reversible error; harmless under Brecht |
| Jury-deliberation questions (Simmons/ Shafer framework) | Non-responsive answers to jury questions violated Simmons by failing to inform on parole eligibility. | Non-responsive answer did not create an unconstitutional false choice; instructions remained adequate. | No due-process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Sixth Amendment confrontation principle for testimonial statements)
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1980) (Reliability and unavailability grounds for hearsay admissibility)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1993) (Harmless-error standard in habeas corpus reviews)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1991) (Victim-impact evidence permissible under due process; limits via fairness)
- Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1994) (Due-process requirement to inform jury when life without parole is the only alternative)
- Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1980) (Jury instruction on lesser-included offenses in capital cases)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (Guilt phase standard for determining sufficiency of evidence)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (Beck framework for lesser-included offenses and due process)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (Impeachment use of silence following Miranda warnings violates due process)
- Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1987) (Victim-impact evidence categories prejudicial to capital sentencing)