HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:24:33 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:16:43 GMT
ETag: "1d581a0-2465-4b6aa0e08dcc0"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 9317
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta content="criminal justice,victim's rights,legal precedent,death penalty, CJLF,amicus,curiae" name="keywords">
<title>Supreme Court to Review 9th Circuit Ruling Voiding Death Sentence</title>
<link href="../styles/releases.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
</head>

<body class="oneColFixCtr">
<div id="container">
  <a href="http://www.cjlf.org" title="Criminal Justice Legal Foundation" id="cjlf-logo"></a>

  <div id="mainContent">
  <div class="info">	
    <b>Release Date:</b>&nbsp; November 5, 2010 <br>
    <b>Contact:</b>&nbsp; Michael Rushford <br>
    (916) 446-0345<br /></p>

	<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
	<a class="addthis_button" href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&amp;username=icjlf">
    <img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/v2/lg-share-en.gif" width="125" height="16" 
    alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a>
    <script type="text/javascript" 
	src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js#username=icjlf"></script>
    <!-- AddThis Button END -->
  </div>
    
  <center>
  <strong>SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW <br>9th
  CIRCUIT RULING VOIDING DEATH SENTENCE</strong><br />
  <em>Oral argument in Cullen</em> v. <em>Pinholster set for Tuesday, November 9</em></center>
    
<p>
A December 2009 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, overturning the death sentence of a double murderer, will be the subject of oral argument this Tuesday in the U. S. Supreme Court.&nbsp; At issue in the case of <em>Cullen</em> v. <em>Pinholster</em> is the ability of a federal court, reviewing a case on habeas corpus, to consider evidence never presented in state court in order to overturn the state court decision.&nbsp; In this case, the Ninth Circuit determined that evidence which could have been presented might have persuaded the jury not to sentence the murderer to death. <br>
<br>
The Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has joined this case to encourage a decision confirming that, when the state courts have reasonably decided a case on the evidence before them, a federal court cannot overturn that decision by taking new evidence.<br>
<br>
&ldquo;In most cases, once the federal court determines that the state court reasonably resolved the claim presented to it, the case should be over,&rdquo; said Foundation Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.&nbsp; &ldquo;The Ninth Circuit&rsquo;s ruling in this case evades a law enacted by Congress specifically to shorten federal court review of death penalty cases,&rdquo; he added.<br>
<br>
According to evidence introduced at trial, on January 9, 1982, Scott Pinholster stabbed a man to death in the course of a home robbery and burglary in the Los Angeles suburb of Tarzana.&nbsp; That evening, Pinholster and two accomplices broke into the home of Michael Kumar to steal drugs.&nbsp; During the burglary, Thomas Johnson and Robert Beckett, who were housesitting for Kumar, opened the front door and discovered Pinholster and his accomplices.&nbsp; All three burglars attempted to leave through the back door, but Johnson and Beckett ran around the back of the house.&nbsp; As Johnson tried to enter the house, Pinholster hit him in the chest several times and demanded his wallet.&nbsp; After Johnson dropped his wallet and sat down, Pinholster set upon Beckett, stabbing him repeatedly while demanding money.&nbsp; When Beckett fell, Pinholster took his wallet and kicked him in the head.&nbsp; One of Pinholster&rsquo;s accomplices also stabbed Johnson several times.&nbsp; The trio fled the scene to Pinholster&rsquo;s apartment, and Pinholster and one of the accomplices remarked they had &ldquo;gotten them good.&rdquo;<br>
<br>
At trial, one of the accomplices and his wife testified that after the robbery, the three went to their apartment, cleaned the knives, and divided the proceeds, which consisted of $23 and a bag of marijuana.&nbsp; Other testimony was introduced from several witnesses who heard Pinholster plan the burglary of Kumar&rsquo;s home and brag about stabbing another victim during a previous robbery.&nbsp; Physical evidence introduced included Pinholster&rsquo;s palmprint at the murder scene and a bloody bootprint near the victims&rsquo; bodies, which matched boots with blood on the soles found in Pinholster&rsquo;s closet.<br>
<br>
Pinholster testified at the trial, bragging that he was a &ldquo;professional robber&rdquo; who used guns, not a murderer who used knives.&nbsp; He claimed that he had committed hundreds of robberies and had only been caught once.&nbsp; He admitted committing another robbery the previous month and that he had broken into Kumar&rsquo;s home on the night of the murders, but denied killing anyone.<br>
<br>
Pinholster was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances.&nbsp; At the penalty trial, the prosecutor presented evidence of Pinholster&rsquo;s prior crimes, including a conviction of kidnapping with the use of a knife, and his involvement with street gangs.<br>
<br>
The defense lawyer had the defendant evaluated by a psychiatrist, Dr. John Stalberg.&nbsp; Dr. Stalberg determined that Pinholster had no mental disease or defect other than &ldquo;antisocial personality disorder,&rdquo; i.e., that he is a sociopath.&nbsp; The defense did not call Dr. Stalberg as a witness.<br>
<br>
Pinholster&rsquo;s mother testified in his defense, noting that he had a bad relationship with his abusive stepfather, that he suffered head injuries as a child, and that he was disruptive in school.&nbsp; She also told jurors that, at age 12, Pinholster was committed to a mental hospital as an emotionally handicapped child and spent much of his youth in juvenile hall and boys&rsquo; homes.&nbsp; The jury voted unanimously to sentence Pinholster to death.<br>
<br>
On direct appeal, the California Supreme Court reviewed Pinholster&rsquo;s multiple claims of trial and sentencing errors.&nbsp; In a 1992 opinion written by Stanley Mosk, the court&rsquo;s most liberal justice, the court unanimously upheld his conviction and sentence.<br>
<br>
On state habeas corpus in 1993, Pinholster claimed ineffective assistance of counsel in both his trial and sentencing.&nbsp; Regarding his sentencing, Pinholster&rsquo;s appellate lawyers argued that his trial attorney failed to investigate his troubled childhood and mental health problems and present expert testimony suggesting that, because of these problems, Pinholster should not be held fully responsible for the murders.&nbsp; The defense presented the evaluation of Dr. George Woods to support this argument.&nbsp; This evaluation claimed that Pinholster had bipolar disorder, contradicting the opinion of Dr. Stalberg.&nbsp; The California Supreme Court rejected the claim.&nbsp; In 1997, Pinholster filed a second state habeas corpus petition, further claiming that trial counsel had inadequately prepared their expert.&nbsp; The claim was again denied by the California Supreme Court.<br>
<br>
On federal habeas corpus, the Federal District Court conducted a review of the evidence supporting Pinholster&rsquo;s sentencing claim.&nbsp; New lawyers for Pinholster hired yet another set of experts, who rendered yet another diagnosis contradicting both of the prior experts.&nbsp; This evidence had never been presented to any state court.&nbsp; In 2003, the District Court upheld Pinholster&rsquo;s conviction but overturned his death sentence, citing his attorney&rsquo;s failure to investigate and present evidence of his mental health problems.&nbsp; Five years later on appeal, a divided panel of the Federal Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court and reinstated the death sentence, noting that Pinholster&rsquo;s claim failed on the merits.<br>
<br>
Last December, a divided 11-judge en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit disagreed, overturning the earlier panel decision and the decision of the California Supreme Court.&nbsp; The majority found the California Supreme Court decision to deny Pinholster&rsquo;s claim unreasonable and speculated that evidence of Pinholster&rsquo;s mental health problems &ldquo;would have humanized him in the eyes of the jury . . . [and] &lsquo;might serve as a basis for a sentence less than death.&rsquo; &rdquo;<br>
<br>
For the U. S. Supreme Court&rsquo;s review of that ruling, the Foundation has introduced a scholarly <em>amicus curiae</em> (friend of the court) brief which points out that an Act of Congress adopted in 1996 <em>prohibits</em> federal courts from overturning a state court decision that reasonably applied established federal law.&nbsp; It makes no sense, CJLF&rsquo;s brief argues, to claim that a court&rsquo;s decision is &ldquo;unreasonable&rdquo; based on evidence never presented to that court.<br>
<br>
&ldquo;The purpose of this law is to limit the number of bites at the apple the defendant gets,&rdquo; said Scheidegger.&nbsp; &ldquo;The reasonableness of the state court&rsquo;s decision must be judged on the evidence presented to it,&rdquo; he added.
<br />

	<!-- end #mainContent --></div>
<!-- end #container --></div>
</body>
</html>
