Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Hedlund v. Ryan, No. 09-99019 (4-24-14) (N. Smith and Bea; partial dissent by Wardlaw).  (Note:  This is an AZ FPD case). 

The 9th affirms denial of a capital habeas.  This case is decided in the shadows of AEDPA deference.  The 9th here finds the state court reasonable in affirming use of a leg restraint based on hearsay reports about a supposed plan to escape.  It was also reasonable for the state to affirm use of dual jurors.  More disturbing is the finding there is no IAC.  The court had rejected the first plea, but said that the defendant could then come back the next day with another plea taking into account other offenses.  There were grounds to have another plea, and the defendant was willing.  The plea had to be the next day.  The next day, however, counsel did not return but instead filed a motion for recusal because of judicial bias.  He argued that the court was going to reject it, and that he wanted another judge.  He lost, and trial went.  The 9th affirms under AEDPA.  Finally, there was no IAC regarding mitigation under AEDPA.  Wardlaw dissents, arguing that the plea tactics were IAC and also mitigation under Eddings.  (This case was tried along with McKinney v. Ryan, which is pending en banc review.)


Post a Comment

<< Home