United States Ninth Circuit

The jury in a death penalty case should have been instructed that it must consider defendant's principal mitigation evidence, showing he would adapt well to prison and would likely be a constructive member of society if incarcerated for life, and habeas relief is granted where it was probable that this error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/15/2007
• Decided 07/15/2003
• Published 07/15/2003

Judges

• Before:  STEPHEN REINHARDT, DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, and RICHARD A. PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Eric Multhaup, Mill Valley, CA, and Christopher H. Wing, Sacramento, CA, for the petitioner-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General for the State of California, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorney General, and Mark A. Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for the respondent-appellee.