Posted by Jonathan Adler:
*Owens v. Guida*: 
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_12_07-2008_12_13.shtml#1228864663


   Speaking of [1]divisions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
   Circuit, today a divided panel rejected the habeas appeal of Gaile
   Owens, the [2]first woman sentenced to death in Tennessee. Among other
   things, the court divided over whether Owens received ineffective
   assistance of counsel because she failed to cooperate fully in her own
   defense and her her attorney neglected to press what some call the "he
   just needed killing" defense.
   --

   Chief Judge Danny Boggs wrote the majority opinion in [3]Owens v.
   Guida, joined by Judge Eugene Siler, Jr. Here is how the majority
   summarized the case.

     Gaile K. Owens (�Owens�) is on Tennessee�s death row because she
     hired Sidney Porterfield to kill her husband and Porterfield
     successfully carried out his assignment. Owens appeals the district
     court�s dismissal of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. She
     argues that: 1) she received ineffective assistance of counsel
     (�IAC�) when trial counsel failed to adequately investigate her
     background and failed to overcome the state�s hearsay objection to
     one of her penalty-phase witnesses; 2) the state violated Brady v.
     Maryland by failing to turn over letters between her deceased
     husband and his paramour; and 3) the trial court unconstitutionally
     prevented her from offering, as mitigating evidence, testimony that
     she wanted to plead guilty in return for receiving a life sentence.

     We reject the first argument and hold that the Tennessee courts
     reasonably applied Strickland v. Washington by concluding that
     Owens sabotaged her own defense and that counsel�s performance is
     not deficient when counsel follows a client�s instructions.
     Likewise, we reject her second argument and hold that the Tennessee
     courts reasonably applied Brady because even if the letters were
     favorable evidence, and were suppressed by the state, Owens was not
     prejudiced because she could have presented other evidence of the
     affair but chose not to do so. Finally, we reject her third
     argument and hold that the Tennessee courts reasonably applied
     Lockett v. Ohio in refusing to admit Owens�s evidence because no
     court, let alone the Supreme Court, has held that failed plea
     negotiations may be admitted at a penalty-phase hearing. Therefore,
     we affirm.

   Judge Gilbert Merritt wrote a strongly worded dissent. It begins:

     The majority opinion slants and misconceives relevant facts and law
     in this case on each of the three major issues in order to uphold
     the death penalty. I will try to straighten out the case for the
     reader by introducing the actual facts and the correct legal
     principles to be applied. This is not a close case.

     The facts about Ryan Owens� cruel and sadistic behavior toward his
     wife now make an overwhelming case of domestic violence and
     psychological abuse in mitigation of the murder case against Gaile
     Owens. From the beginning, Mrs. Owens� counsel knew that this was
     her best � indeed, her only � defense. Before trial, her counsel
     told the trial court that in his opinion: �This case has a
     meritorious defense in the battered-wife syndrome.� The Memphis
     district attorneys obviously knew that this was the defense theory.
     But this defense was never developed or even mentioned to the jury
     during the trial because of the cover-up of exculpatory evidence by
     the Memphis prosecutor and the complete failure of defense counsel
     to conduct a proper investigation of Ryan Owens� sadistic behavior
     toward his wife. I will discuss the Memphis prosecutor�s cover-up
     of exculpatory evidence first, then defense counsel�s failure to
     investigate and develop the defense, and finally the refusal of the
     Memphis trial court to allow in evidence one of the defendant�s
     best lines of mitigation testimony.

   The majority responds that "for many of the points of the dissent, a
   careful examination of the relevant part of this opinion, and the
   cases and portions of the record cited therein, suffices for
   refutation." Additional responses to the dissent are contained on
   pages 19-20.

References

   1. http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1228745082.shtml
   2. 
http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2008/12/9/tennessee_moves_closer_to_executing_first_woman
   3. http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0440p-06.pdf

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to