On Nov. 13, CJLF filed an amicus brief in Schriro v. Landrigan. This case involves an Arizona murder committed by a man who had escaped from prison after being convicted of another murder. (Once again, incarceration is not 100% incapacitative.) He claimed on state and federal habeas that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance by not introducing the "mitigating" evidence that he is genetically predisposed to kill people. The state habeas judge found that Landrigan had expressly directed his attorney not to present mitigating evidence. The Ninth Circuit said that the state habeas judge had taken an exchange between Landrigan and the trial judge out of context. But the state habeas judge was the trial judge. She took her own questions and the answers to them out of context? Not likely.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), when the case turns on a question of fact, a federal habeas court cannot grant relief unless the state court finding was "an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." If a review of the state proceeding indicates that this standard is not met and the factual finding is dispositive under clearly applicable law, that claim should be over. There is no need for discovery or hearings in federal court.

CJLF's brief in this case was written pro bono publico by Gregory Broderick of Downey Brand LLP, Sacramento.