Richard Dennis Oxford v. Paul Delo

OXFORD, Appellant, Dennis Richard DELO, Appellee.

Paul

No. 94-1879. Appeals, Court of

United States

Eighth Circuit. Sept.

Submitted 1994. July

Decided 1995.

Rehearing Suggestion Rehearing for Sept.

En Banc Denied 1995.* * Arnold, McMillian, Judge, suggestion rehearing. Richard S. Chief Woll- man, Murphy, Judges, grant Circuit KS, Adams, Leawood,

Philip argued J. (Daniel Park, Fowler, KS, L. Overland on the brief), appellant. for Gen., Atty. Frank Jung, argued A. Asst. appellee. FAGG, HEANEY, Judge, Before Circuit BOWMAN, Judge, Senior Circuit Circuit Judge.

BOWMAN, Judge. Circuit appeals Richard Dennis Oxford a final judgment District entered Court1 de- nying petition of corpus for a writ habeas (1988). under We affirm. U.S.C. I. evening

On the of November Wampler Melba and her husband Harold disappeared leaving Joplin, a bar in after Missouri, company of Oxford and his companion time, Richard At the Brown. Ox- fugitives ford and from Brown were the Con- Hominy, ner Correctional Center Okla- partially decomposed homa. The bodies of Wamplers were discovered the trunk City January of a car at motel on a Kansas Following September 1987. trial was convicted of the Oxford murder of Wampler Melba and sentenced to death.2 Pursuant to Missouri Court Rule 29.15, proa se motion Oxford filed to vacate by 29.15, required the conviction. As Rule pro se Subsequent- motion was verified. ly, appointed represent Oxford prepared an amended Rule motion as- serting claims not asserted various Oxford pro including in his se ineffective assistance trial counsel. Oxford refused to and as communicate with his counsel a result petition the amended filed without verifi- evidentiary cation. hearing, After an trial court denied both Rule 29.15 motions. appeal then Oxford took a direct con- viction and an and sentence denial his Rule 29.15 motions to the Mis- consolidating souri Court. After appeals, that court affirmed the trial Wolle, fully 1. 2. The Honorable Charles R. United States The facts of the case are set forth in State , Iowa, (Mo.1990) (en banc), Oxford, Judge for the Southern District of S.W.2d 396 sitting by designation in the District of Western L.Ed.2d Missouri. alia, Delo, respects, holding, inter barred.3 See No. 91-0080- in all (W.D.Mo. (order 10, 1993) amended Rule Aug. raised in Oxford’s the claims CV-W-8 dis procedurally barred be 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 17,- 19, 27-29); 29.15 motion were missing counts failed to the amend cause Oxford had No. 91-0080-CV-W-8 Rule 29.15. in accordance with ed motion (W.D.Mo. 1993) (order 29, Sept. dismissing (Mo. 396, Oxford, State 30). 4, 6, 9-16, 18, 20-26, counts and 1990) (en 1055, banc), cert. 498 U.S. orders, In its two the District Court found 769, 112 111 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Supreme the Missouri Court had made Following Supreme Court’s following respect the determinations with to rehearing and to recall of motions for denial (1) 2, 3, 5, 8, Oxford’s claims: Oxford’s claims mandate, petition filed his the 17, 19, 20, 27, 28, procedurally and 29 were amended, peti- District Court. As the they defaulted because were raised in the thirty contained claims of constitutional tion amended Rule 29.15 motion that Oxford had subsequently error. The District Court (2) 1, 4, verify; failed to Oxford’s claims giving stayed proceedings, further 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 20 were opportunity to file with the Missouri Su- procedurally they defaulted because were preme Court a second motion to recall raised in Oxford’s motions to the court thereby pre- and to exhaust several mandate mandate; to its recall Oxford’s claim viously claims. The Missouri unexhausted although properly pro in his raised se Rule summarily denied Oxford’s motion, appeal not raised in his was stay. and the District Court lifted its from the denial of that motion and thus also thoroughly addressing procedural After procedurally defaulted. claims, history of each of Oxford’s habeas then examined each of the Missouri District Court dismissed all but one of them ground they procedurally procedur- Court’s determinations of on the were may give be summarized as No. 15—Failure of state to notice of intent to 3. Oxford's habeas claims rely statutory aggravating upon follows: circumstances Disproportionate imposition appellate No. assistance of No. 1—Ineffective 16— (failure points in- to brief on various death rights) (failure volving of constitutional denial No. 17—IATC to raise evidence of duress trial counsel domination) No. 2—-Ineffective assistance of and (failure (IATC) produce mitigating evidence to allowing separate No. 18—Trial court error in sentencing) regarding mental condition at prior enumeration of convictions (failure mitigating produce to evi- No. 3—IATC (failure defense) insanity to raise No. 19—IATC sentencing) regarding dence mental illness at (failure prepare opening state- No. 20—IATC to (failure object jury to to instructions No. 4—IATC argue support of mo- ment and failure to 15) Nos. 4 and verdict) directed tions for (failure present child- No. 5—IATC to evidence of (failure jurors inquire 21—IATC to of wheth- No. physical problems health to hood mental and guilt) they er believed arrest indicated jury) (failure interrogate adequately to No. 22—IATC submitting juty in- 6—Trial court No. error potential jurors) (regarding aggravating No. cir- struction cumstances) (failure adequately to examine wit- No. 23—IATC ness) submitting jury error in in- No. 7—Trial court (failure adequately cross-exam- No. 24—IATC to (requiring unanimity No. for a struction witness) ine circumstances) mitigating finding of (failure adequately cross-exam- No. 25-—IATC to (failure psychi- No. 8—IATC to secure additional witness) ine investigate testify at atrist to sentencing) mental illness and (failure object to exhib- No. to various 26—IATC its) (failure object to to instructions No. 9—IATC (failure testimony of No. 27—IATC to introduce 21) Nos. 18 and sentencing) examining psychiatrist at excluding juror court error in No. 10—Trial (failure testimony to introduce No. 28—IATC (failure question jurors regard- No. 11—IATC to examining psychiatrist at sentenc- childhood ing penally) death ing) Improper prosecutorial remarks about No. 12— (failure testimony of No. 29—IATC to introduce deterrence sentencing) prison superintendent at prosecutorial Improper remarks about No. 13— (failure object to admission of No. 30—IATC family victims’ examining psy- (failure testimony edited chiatrist) of childhood object to comment No. 14—IATC exam) polygraph about Thompson, they on also Coleman concluded that rested al default and grounds adequate to 115 L.Ed.2d law independent state (1991). Moreover, review. bar federal-habeas under has held that a default Court also determined The District may independent constitute state law 25, 26, 21, 22, and 30 claims grounds precluding adequate state law feder presented to the Missouri never had been Reed, al review. Harris v. form, and that Supreme Court 1038, 1042-43, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 barred be claims would (1989) (“Under adequate Sykes ... an pres- if were now to courts Oxford Missouri independent finding [as default attempt to exhaust his the claims in an ent trill bar federal habeas law] a matter state Accordingly, the District state remedies. claim....”). of the federal review that all of these claims had determined law. defaulted under state procedurally been pro Missouri Court Rule 29.15 person felony may vides that a convicted of a of the claims found to respect to all With by filing with seek relief from the conviction defaulted, procedurally the Dis- have been a motion to vacate. A Rule the trial court Court, court record on the state trict based motion, verify movant “shall declar arguments, parties’ and oral and the briefs ing grounds for that he has listed all relief had not established cause ruled that Oxford acknowledging his under known to and procedural his de- prejudice to excuse and standing any ground for relief that he waives procedurally defaulted All of the fault.4 him that is not in the mo known to listed by the therefore were dismissed Dis- claims 29.15(d). addition, In tion.” Mo.R.Crim.P. procedurally trict as barred. requires “[a]ny that amended mo Rule 29.15 procedurally only claim found not by tion shall be verified movant.” Mo. claim number which barred was Oxford’s 29.15(f). R.Crim.P. Because Rule 29.15 alleges death is un- that Missouri’s procedure post-conviction the exclusive facially applied. both and as constitutional Missouri, properly relief claims not assert rejected this claim on the The District Court procedurally ed under rule are defaulted. challenge and does not now merits Dixon, State v. 524 See S.W.2d challenge the that decision. Oxford does Robinson, (Mo.Ct.App.1993); State v. of his other claims District Court’s dismissal (Mo.Ct.App.1992). S.W.2d It was procedurally as barred. verify failure to amended motion his (f) that accordance with subsection led to II. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, default of claims argument We first address Oxford’s 10, 19, and 20. verify amended Rule 29.15 that failure to an independent procedurally an or A claim that is defaulted motion does not constitute law, however, adequate ground sufficient to bar feder under state is barred from state therein. It is federal review if the state al review of the claims raised (2) firmly rule and well established that federal courts are is both established reviewing regularly Georgia, in followed. Ford v. barred from claims decided on 850, 857-58, adequate grounds. dependent and state law U.S. S.Ct. Muller, 207, 210, (1991); Delo, Corp. L.Ed.2d 935 Grubbs v. 948 F.2d Fox Film v. — (1935). (8th 1459, 1462-63 Cir.1991), 183, 184, 80 L.Ed. 158 56 S.Ct. 72, 87, -, 109, 121 Wainwright Sykes, 97 U.S. (1977), 53 L.Ed.2d 594 Federal review is not barred where a S.Ct. inconsistently principle procedural rule is en Court extended this state brought by claims forced or the state undertakes novel federal review habeas Grubbs, custody. application of the rule. 948 F.2d petitioners are in state See See who Delo, -, -, observed, Schlup Oxford makes ment. See - U.S. 4. As the District Thus, (1995); 130 L.Ed.2d 808 no claim of actual innocence. as a matter law, satisfy miscarriage jus Washington 760-61 he cannot Cir.1995). exception prejudice require tice to the cause and State, Thus, (Mo.Ct.App claims v. whether Oxford’s 1462-63. .1992)(to effect). same These and on whether Missouri Su- numerous turns are barred firmly plain 29.15 is established other decisions make it that the verifi preme Court Rule regularly requirement Oxford contends cation has been fol regularly followed. cases, one, present lowed like the in which it is not. movant cannot fail demonstrate lengthy Although 29.15 did not have a Rule caused ure the inattention of litigation time Oxford filed history of at the counsel. that fact is of amended unverified require- to him. The verification little avail Because we find that the verification in the plainly of Rule 29.15 is stated ment requirement firmly of Rule 29.15 was estab in effect for more than a rule and had been lished at the time Oxford filed his amended filed his amended motion. year when Oxford regularly motion and has been followed since Indeed, evidently was aware of the conclude, inception, its as did the District filing his requirement prior to verification Court, Court’s original pro se amended motion because 2, 3, 5, 6, determination that Oxford’s claims Accordingly, properly verified. motion was 8, 10, 19, and 20 are defaulted requirement that the verification we conclude upon adequate independent rests firmly established. of Rule was ground, state law sufficient bar the Dis trict Court’s of those claims. review component “regularly followed” As to the inquiry, disagree with Oxford’s of our we III. requirement of assertion that the verification argues District has “in a constant state of Oxford also Rule 29.15 been Appellant’s determining that claim of his motion. erred ineffec flux” since he filed (claim Brief, direct-appeal that the Missouri tive assistance of p. 46. We find 1) consistently procedurally barred. This claim was courts have enforced the verifi See, e.g., raised for the first time in Oxford’s second requirements of Rule 29.15. cation (Mo. Evans, 507, motion to recall the mandate. The District v. 802 515 State S.W.2d 1991) (en banc) (declaring post- Supreme that the Missouri unverified Court determined Dixon, nullity); procedural had dismissed the claim as motion a 854 Court conviction (holding post-conviction ly defaulted when that court denied Oxford’s at 524 that S.W.2d to motion. Oxford contends that the claim is procedurally motions were deficient due Robinson, verification); procedurally 832 not barred because the Missouri lack of S.W.2d Supreme the motion without (holding preserved that not Court denied 945 claims were post-conviction mentioning procedural grounds. The denial appellate review where verified); explain in fact a one-liner that did not properly was not State v. was motion (to 19, ruling. Boyd, (Mo.Ct.App.1991) the basis for the court’s these 816 S.W.2d 20 Norris, circumstances, effect); agree the District we same State v. S.W.2d (to 379, effect); must same the federal habeas court (Mo.Ct.App.1991) (Mo.Ct. Leisure, 560, through” unexplained “look state v. State S.W.2d (to effect); deci Norfolk, order to the state court’s last reasoned App.1991) same State Nunnemaker, 797, 105, 108 (appel Ylst v. (Mo.Ct.App.1990) sion. See 807 S.W.2d 2590, 2594-95, may 115 L.Ed.2d late court not review claims raised motion); brings us back to the Mis McDaniels v. 706 This unverified amended State, denying (Mo.Ct.App.1991) Supreme order Ox souri Court’s 806 S.W.2d mandate, (unverified first motion to recall post-conviction motion must be ford’s plainly that all the claims as jurisdiction); Taylor v. which stated dismissed for lack of State, procedurally de (Mo.Ct.App.1990) serted in that motion were 800 S.W.2d (to effect); Clay, faulted and that further claims Oxford same State v. cf. be (holding might attempt that court to raise later also would (Mo.Ct.App.1991) Ylst if defaulted. It follows under may rule on an unverified motion movant Supreme that the Missouri Court’s denial that failure to is caused establishes counsel); the mandate motion to recall inattention of and Hutchinson Oxford’s second proce- on IV. having been based as must be read grounds. dural argues that the District Court Oxford next 4, 9, 12, 13, holding that his claims erred cause and has not shown Because Oxford proeedurally and 18 were barred. default, prejudice to excuse procedural bar determina- District Court’s satisfy the miscar- not and because he does predicated tion was on the Missouri exception to the cause and justice riage of denial of Oxford’s second motion Court’s standard, supra see note prejudice un- recall the mandate. See our discussion that this claim District Court agree with the III, part supra, affirming the District der habeas review. from federal is barred finding procedural bar. Oxford Court’s imposi- that these claims relate to the asserts Moreover, if claim were even that the Mis- tion of his death sentence and barred, we concur with the proeedurally not obligated to review souri Court was claim is conclusion Court’s pursuant them to Mo.Rev.Stat. 565.035. as on an ineffective meritless. To succeed Thus, argues that claims could claim, appellate counsel sistance of proeedurally not have been defaulted even performance his counsel’s must show though had raised them. he never before (2) that but for counsel’s deficient and disagree. We errors, pro the result of the unprofessional case, In this different. Wilson ceedings have been performed ‘Court a section 565.035 review (8th Cir.) Armontrout, 817, 819 sentence and chronicled its conclu Washington, 466 (citing Strickland deciding published opinion sions in the Ox 668, 687, 694, 104 S.Ct. appeal. Oxford, 791 ford’s consolidated See (1984)), cert. de 80 L.Ed.2d S.W.2d at 402. It was not until well over a - -, nied, 113 S.Ct. later, however, year present that Oxford’s specific citing Without 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, claims and 18 were first alleges that his counsel examples, Oxford presented Supreme in to the Missouri Court of numerous violations Ox failed to brief ap a motion to recall the mandate. Oxford rights appeal. on direct ford’s constitutional parently faults the Missouri however, record, reviewing the we After lacking clairvoyance to divine and agree Court that Oxford’s with the District review, sponte, then sua claims that he had direct-appeal counsel was well within the yet not raised. are satisfied that section We limiting the num bounds of his discretion requires 565.035 the Missouri appeal. clairvoyance raised in Oxford’s direct ber of issues neither to demonstrate such nor must make “stra to scour the record in search of errors that We have held that counsel ap the defendant has failed to raise in his thorough investigation tegic ... after choices peal. plausible facts relevant to of law and [the] Trickey, options,” Horne v. 895 F.2d Moreover, belatedly although pre- (8th Cir.1990) Strickland, 466 U.S. (quoting sented these claims a motion to recall the 2066), “[t]he at and that mandate, Court, find- require appellate not coun Constitution does defaulted, ing proeedurally them otherwise every argument on to raise nonfrivolous

sel required not to them under Mis- review appeal,” 46 F.3d Sidebottom mandatory souri’s review statute. Mo.Rev. (8th Cir.1995). agree with the District requires We Missouri Stat. 565.035 Su- direct-appeal counsel’s choices as preme imposition Court that to of all review sentences, consideration, taking to be raised were reasonable. into to the issues death by way “any to errors enumerated has failed to show that his addition Because Oxford following questions: appeal,” of three performance was defi direct-appeal counsel’s Horne, cient, inquiry (1) at an end. our is the sentence of death was Whether (“If passion, F.2d at ... counsel’s conduct was imposed under the influence of circumstances, any arbitrary factor; do prejudice, reasonable under the we or other prejudice.”). of not need to reach the issue

(2) ... supports the the evidence whether statutory aggravating circum- finding of a default, Despite procedural Kis Ox ...; stance ford is entitled to nevertheless federal habe if as review of his defaulted claims he can (3) is exces the sentence death whether (2) preju cause for the default show im disproportionate or sive alleged dice as a result of the violation of cases.... posed similar Coleman, law. federal U.S. at (1995) (emphasis § 565.035.3 Mo.Rev.Stat. 111 S.Ct. at 2564-65. Oxford makes added). that the would have us hold First, arguments. respect two cause to “arbitrary alleged in his claims are errors 29.15, the claims defaulted under Rule Ox subject mandatory review under factors” to argues mentally ford that he was unable to inquiries. comprehend the first of the above procedural the rule and its strict requirements. light of the contention is untenable. history of this case we find Oxford’s conten given Supreme Court has not The Missouri utterly tion to without be merit. Oxford “arbitrary factor” lan precise content to the evidently possessed comprehension mental statutory must read the lan guage, so we permit initially sufficient to to file an it. guage as we believe that court would read eleven-page pro se Rule 29.15 motion enu Zoeller, See Lenhardt claims, merating variety doing a and in so Cir.1995). language Based on the and struc comply to with the Rule’s verification re statute, phrase “arbitrary ture quirement. nothing There the record reasonably cannot be read as embrac factor” suggest capac that Oxford lacked the mental even all claims of ing all claims of error or ity to his amended motion in the same ejus constitutional error. Under the rule pro manner that he verified his se motion. generis, general term in a statute that dem Second, Oxford asserts he has cause specific things is an enumeration of follows inef- for his default based on the broadly but is to be held not to be construed of his trial fective assistance and Rule things of same kind or apply to other counsel, respect to trial counsel. With specifically mentioned. See class as those reject argument fail to this because we see Ry. Train & W. Co. v. American Norfolk trial counsel’s causal connection between Ass’n, 117, 129, 111 Dispatchers verify performance and failure to Oxford’s (1991); 1156, 1163-64, 113 L.Ed.2d 95 S.Ct. Further, Rule 29.15 motion. his amended (6th 1990). Dictionary 517 ed. Black’s Law performance of this has held that the Here, any phrase catch-all “or other arbi the inquiry trial is irrelevant to the cause factor,” trary of two follows an enumeration petitioner fails to raise the ineffec- where the passion prejudice. Ac specific factors — in of trial counsel claim state tive assistance “arbitrary” cordingly, we read the word nar Lockhart, Maynard proceedings. v. that, rogue like rowly to describe factors (8th Cir.1992); 981, Harris v. 981 F.2d 984 prejudice, proper place no passion and have (8th Cir.1991). Lockhart, 450, F.2d 452 jury’s imposes a in deliberations when it a Here, assistance Oxford raised the ineffective sentence of death. only claim in his unverified of trial counsel under Rule 29.15 which amended Here, that he was Oxford does not claim nullity. Boyd, Missouri law is See capriciously impulsive- or sentenced to death this at 20. Oxford cannot resurrect S.W.2d ly, alleges an of con- but instead assortment by cloaking in claim it procedurally defaulted no resemblance to stitutional errors bear garb argument. a cause the section concerns adumbrated 565.035.3(1). Accordingly, reject argument we conclude that that the We also obligat- during Court was not of his counsel ineffective assistance issue, and the him cause proceedings ed to review the claims here 29.15 affords Rule determining Oxford has Made District Court was correct for his default. alleged rnade- attempt defaulted no to show how that these claims were to fail to quaey of his counsel caused Oxford law. under state short, Rath In we affirm the District Court’s Rule 29.15 motion. his amended a matter of determination that as law Oxford er, that the lack of verification admits cannot show cause to excuse his failure to communicate with resulted from his showing Absent a of cause we need defaults. counsel, the amended mo drafted who Lowe-Bey, prejudice. not reach the issue of Support tion. Memorandum See F.3d at 820. for Reconsideration of Motion Petitioner’s Evidentiary Denying an the Court’s Order 8, v. No. CV91-

Hearing at VI. 1993). (W.D.Mo. Sept. 0080-CV-W-8 Finally, Oxford contends that refusing grant him District Court erred in event, no consti In Oxford had evidentiary hearing at which to show right effective assistance of tutional prejudice cause and for the default of both proceedings un post-conviction counsel in his 29.15 the claims raised his unverified Rule Coleman, 501 U.S. at der Rule 29.15. See his claim of ineffective assistance motion and argument 111 S.Ct. at 2566. Oxford’s direct-appeal argument This counsel. proceedings were so inti that his Rule 29.15 claim, already the latter since we moot as to mately up his direct bound ruling have affirmed the District Court’s right a constitutional to the effective he had proee if it is not this claim lacks merit even proceed during those assistance of counsel durally opinion, part barred. III of this See rejected by ings squarely this Cir has been claims, remaining swpra. As to the the Su Armontrout, v. 973 F.2d cuit. See Nolan preme petitioner’s has that “[t]he held (8th Cir.1992). right There is no 616-17 opportunity to meet the burden of cause and of Rule coun assistance the effective prejudice evidentiary will not include an same individual acts as sel even when the hearing if as a the district court determines direct-appeal counsel and counsel. Rule 29.15 satisfy petitioner matter of law that cannot Groose, Lowe-Bey 28 F.3d See v. prejudice] [cause standard.” — —, Cir.), Zant, McCleskey L.Ed.2d 606 S.Ct. 1454, 1470, 113 (1991); see Purkett, Hoggard also Lowe-Bey, length discussed at (8th Cir.1994). Here, the District Court de hybrid appeals process and the Missouri’s termined as a matter of that Oxford was law Rule 29.15 counsel and distinction between satisfy cause-and-prejudice unable to concluded that direct-appeal counsel. We standard. Because we concur that deter [petitioner’s] direct-appeal counsel even if mination, we conclude that hybrid appeal, [Rule 29.15] had handled a by denying did not abuse its discretion Ox [petitioner] have been entitled evidentiary hearing. request ford’s for an on that to effective assistance of counsel States, See Shaw United F.3d portion hybrid appeal that was de- the (8th Cir.1994) (stating standard of re direct-appeal voted to issues because he view). right of coun- has no to effective assistance hybrid appeal portion sel on that of the VII. the of his Rule 29.15 devoted to claims. argu- We have considered all of Oxford’s judg- ments and find them meritless. The Coleman, 752-55, (citing at Id. 501 U.S. ment of the affirmed. 2566-68). had no S.Ct. at Because Oxford during pro- right to counsel his Rule 29.15 HEANEY, Judge, Senior Circuit ceedings, his claim of ineffective assistance of dissenting. proceedings during counsel those cannot con- view, my In the district court erred in stitute cause for his default. See Coleman, denying opportunity 111 S.Ct. at 2568- Oxford the to assert his U.S. 69; respect to ineffectiveness of Pollard v. claims with the Cir.1994). phase penalty his counsel at the of his trial. pregnancy the several times. After Essentially claims are embodied abort these 2, 3, 5, birth, feelings set forth and 8 as she had no maternal claim numbers Oxford’s I majority opinion. would 3 of the footnote of love or affection and considered an the court with case to district remand this responsibility, yet unwanted she also refused to to state court to remand directions adopted by him to be others to allow who phase case and penalty of this rehear to raise him. father offered Oxford’s was to introduce permit current counsel Oxford’s distant and unaffectionate. The adult appropriate. any mitigating evidence he feels gave positive who attention to Oxford relative Accordingly, I dissent. uncle, was an who committed suicide when years about Oxford was seven old. introduced evi- At trial Oxford’s counsel and his troubled childhood dence of Oxford’s ageAt seventeen months was Oxford hos- penalty physical history. At the mental and pneumonia pitalized with and received three witness, however, only one phase, he offered After blood transfusions to his head. he wife, briefly very who testified Oxford’s hospital came home from the he was nervous good relationship their with about Oxford’s irritable, still, and he could not sit and his episodes in and about which Oxford children twitched, body sleep- was often even while he call to strangely. Counsel did not behaved ing. days kindergarten From earliest psychiatrists had of the who stand disruptive, discipline was and no from Oxford or treated Oxford. examined By parents or teachers effective. was second trial, phase jury “the is entitled of a grade, prescribed, medication was but it possible in much as receive as information change condition A made his worse. med- as to to make an informed decision order reaction, opposite and ication caused Ox- Leisure, punishment.” State ford became “zombie” who cried often and (citations (Mo.1988) omitted), long periods nothing sit and do for — -, began mother time. His then alternate concept of individu- having drug. him and off also on He had capital requires sentencing in eases alized age of ten. Ox- two concussions before infor- possess “the fullest that the senteneer grandmother in and paternal ford’s was out concerning the defendant’s possible mation life, of her of mental institutions for most and the cir- life characteristics” as well as and therapy was treated electric shock she particular Lock- offense. cumstances one on at least occasion. Ohio, ett (1978) (inter- L.Ed.2d began sniffing age ten Around omitted). quotations nal and citations By teenage years taking he was glue. right, prosecution offered As was its drugs speed other such as Valium. testimony powerful from very graphic and began therapy age thirteen Oxford Around victims of Ox- the victims and relatives of therapy psychiatrist. was in with a He prosecution pre- previous crimes. The ford’s facility years placed in a about two the worst of Oxford’s sented years while still one and a half for about upon It was defense behavior. incumbent therapy psychiatrist. undergoing with the aspects on those to focus placed in other facilities also was two impairments mental which background and years. teenage was never during his There though mitigation. offered Even could be change family circum- any lasting in his all, some, though not of such evidence psychiatrist A who ex- or behavior. stances testimony given during guilt duplicate in 1987 and 1988 and testified amined Oxford trial, phase responsibili- counsel had offered the guilt phase of the trial at the ty penalty phase, it in the where to offer ill, proba- mentally opinion that Oxford was determining life or death focus is on whether psy- suffering schizophrenia. The bly from particular appropriate sentence for this symp- of the same observed some chiatrist defendant. family members reported Oxford’s toms adulthood and throughout his childhood and mother attests that Oxford therapist. by his childhood attempted child. to self- an unwanted She recognize I that Oxford does not make a bring

claim of actual innocence techni-

cally miscarriage justice within the stan- view, however, my

dard. his claim that

presentation mitigating of all the provided

evidence would have a basis for

avoiding the death should fall into category.

the same America,

UNITED STATES

Plaintiff-Appellee, SKORNIAK, Defendant-Appellant.

Frank

Nos. 94-3728. Appeals,

United Court of States

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 1995. July

Decided 1995.

Rehearings Suggestions Rehearing

En Aug. Banc Denied 1995.

Case Details

Case Name: Richard Dennis Oxford v. Paul Delo

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Sep 8, 1995

Citation: 59 F.3d 741

Docket Number: 94-1879

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.