Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a California state prisoner's habeas corpus petition challenging his murder convictions and death sentence. Applying the deferential AEDPA standard of review, the panel held that the California Supreme Court reasonably rejected claims concerning an ex parte judge-juror communication and ineffective assistance of counsel at both the guilt and penalty phases. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability on an uncertified due process claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether AEDPA deference applied to Catlin's claims when the California Supreme Court had adjudicated substantially identical claims on the merits in an earlier state habeas proceeding and later treated them as repetitive or procedurally barred.
- Whether the California Supreme Court reasonably rejected claims arising from the state trial judge's ex parte communication with a juror.
- Whether the California Supreme Court reasonably rejected Catlin's guilt-phase ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's investigation and impeachment of jailhouse informant Conward Hardin.
- Whether the California Supreme Court reasonably rejected Catlin's penalty-phase ineffective-assistance claims concerning investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence.
- Whether Catlin was entitled to expansion of the certificate of appealability for his Brady and Napue claims concerning undisclosed benefits, mental-health information, and allegedly false testimony involving Hardin.
Holdings
- AEDPA's deferential standard applies to Catlin's claims because the California Supreme Court adjudicated them on the merits, even though it later rejected some substantially identical claims as repetitive or procedurally barred after having already resolved them.
- Even assuming the state trial judge's ex parte discussion with a juror was constitutional error, the error was subject to harmless-error review and the California Supreme Court reasonably could conclude that it was harmless. The communication did not constitute structural error, and the Remmer presumption of prejudice did not apply.
- The California Supreme Court reasonably could conclude that Catlin failed to establish either deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland based on counsel's investigation and impeachment of jailhouse informant Conward Hardin.
- The California Supreme Court reasonably could conclude that Catlin failed to establish deficient performance or prejudice from counsel's investigation and presentation of penalty-phase mitigation evidence.
- Catlin was not entitled to expand the certificate of appealability for his Brady and Napue claims, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed that portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“There, the Supreme Court rejected the position that “an unrecorded ex parte communication between trial judge and juror can never be harmless error,” observing that such a rule would “ignore[] . . . day-to-day realities of courtroom life” and “undermine[] society’s interest in the administration of criminal justice.”” (24)
“But when we analyze Catlin’s challenge under the deferential standard of review dictated by AEDPA, it is clear that Catlin is not entitled to habeas relief.” (65)
Factual background
Catlin was convicted of murdering his fourth wife, Joyce Catlin, in 1976 and his adoptive mother, Martha Catlin, in 1984 by poisoning them with paraquat. Evidence included expert testimony regarding paraquat poisoning, Catlin's access to paraquat, a paraquat bottle bearing his fingerprint, financial and familial motives, and testimony from jailhouse informant Conward Hardin that Catlin said he had killed the victims. Catlin had also been convicted of murdering his fifth wife, Glenna Kaye Catlin, and stipulated to that conviction during the penalty phase. The challenged habeas claims concerned an ex parte discussion between the trial judge and a juror, alleged ineffective assistance at the guilt and penalty phases, and alleged Brady and Napue violations involving Hardin.
Procedural history
Catlin was convicted in California in 1990 of two first-degree murders, and the jury imposed a death sentence for the murder of Martha Catlin. The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2001 and later summarily denied state habeas petitions, deciding some claims on the merits and treating others as procedurally barred or repetitive. The federal district court denied Catlin's § 2254 petition and his request for discovery and evidentiary development on December 17, 2019, granting a certificate of appealability on specified claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief and declined to expand the certificate of appealability for Claim 23, dismissing that portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.