Supreme Court Reinstates Death Penalty in Calif. Case, Says Psychiatric Evidence Introduced Too Late
The U.S. Supreme Court has reinstated the death sentence for a man convicted in a Los Angeles double murder, despite evidence that his trial lawyer had failed to introduce evidence of his psychological problems.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion (PDF) reinstating the death sentence for Scott Lynn Pinholster, convicted of killing two men who interrupted him while robbing a drug dealer. The decision in Cullen v. Pinholster overturns a ruling granting habeas relief by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
According to Thomas, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act bars federal courts from considering new evidence that was not presented to state courts considering an inmate’s claim on the merits. The new evidence in Pinholster’s case included the opinions of new psychiatric experts who concluded the inmate suffers from partial epilepsy, brain injury and organic personality syndrome.
Pinholster’s trial lawyers had not offered mitigating psychological evidence during the penalty phase of the trial, arguing that prosecutors had failed to give proper notice of aggravating circumstances. One of his trial lawyers was offered a continuance to gather evidence, but he declined, saying additional time would not “make a great deal of difference,” according to Thomas’ opinion. Pinholster’s mother, the only witness in the penalty phase, testified about her son’s troubled childhood.
The “family sympathy” defense was not unreasonable, given an unsympathetic client who bragged of being a professional robber, Thomas said.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a separate concurrence stating that federal courts should be able to hold new evidence hearings in rare circumstances. A dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor hits Thomas for his “novel interpretation” of the federal law.
“I fear the consequences of the court’s novel interpretation of [the law] for diligent state habeas petitioners with compelling evidence supporting their claims who were unable, through no fault of their own, to present that evidence to the state court that adjudicated their claims,” she wrote. Her dissent was partially joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
