HIGH COURT TO REVIEW
NINTH CIRCUIT DEATH PENALTY RULING
Oral Argument in Brown v. Payton on Wednesday,
November 10
A federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling voiding the death sentence
of a Southern California murderer will be the subject of oral argument
in the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday. The case of Brown v.
Payton involves the sentencing of William Payton 22 years ago for the
rape and murder of one woman, and the attempted murder of another woman
and her young son. An en banc ruling by the Ninth Circuit, last year,
overturned Payton’s death sentence finding that the instructions
given to his sentencing jury were unconstitutional. The Sacramento-based
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief in
the case, arguing that the Ninth Circuit violated limits on its authority
to hear the case and misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent to overturn
Payton’s death sentence.
“Legislation adopted by Congress and signed by President Clinton
in 1996 was specifically drafted to prevent the type of blatant disregard
for the rule of law the Ninth Circuit has exhibited in this case,”
said Charles Hobson, who authored the CJLF brief.
The facts taken from court records depict a brutal crime and irrefutable
evidence of guilt. Very early on the morning of May 26, 1980, Patricia
Pensinger, unable to sleep, was sitting in her kitchen working on a
crossword puzzle. Also staying in her Garden Grove, California, home
was her 10-year-old son Blaine and some boarders, including 21-year-old
Pamela Montgomery. Pensinger’s husband was away on duty with the
National Guard. At about 4:00 a.m. she heard her front door open and
William Payton, a former boarder, walked into the kitchen. Payton said
he was having car trouble and needed to talk to her. As they talked,
Payton had several beers. At one point, Pamela Montgomery briefly visited
the kitchen for a glass of water. About an hour after he arrived Payton
asked Pensinger if he could sleep on her couch. She agreed and went
to sleep in her bedroom, where her son Blaine was already asleep in
her bed.
Some time later, she was awakened by two blows on her back. She rolled
over to see Payton jump on the bed and begin to stab her with a knife.
When her son attempted to grab the knife, Payton stabbed him as well.
When the knife bent, and could no longer be used, Payton left the bedroom.
Pensinger told her son that he should escape and get help while she
distracted Payton. When she entered the kitchen, Payton, armed with
another knife attacked her again. As Blaine ran through the kitchen,
Payton stabbed him in the back then resumed his attack on the boy’s
mother. When other people in the house began to respond to Pensinger’s
calls for help, Payton dropped the knife and fled. A short time later,
21-year-old Pamela Montgomery was found on her bedroom floor in a pool
of blood. Her nightgown had been torn open and she had been stabbed
repeatedly in the stomach. Although Patricia Pensinger suffered 40 stab
wounds to her face, neck, back and chest, and Blaine suffered 23 wounds
to his face neck and back; both survived.
At the trial, Payton’s wife waived her privilege against testifying
against her husband. She told the jury how Payton had returned home
at about 6:15 a.m. covered with blood. When he removed his clothes,
she saw a large amount of blood on his body. The jury also heard testimony
from Pensinger and her son, describing the attack, and a county jail
inmate who said that Payton admitted committing the crimes. This testimony
and forensic evidence convinced the jury to convict Payton of the rape
and murder of Pamela Montgomery and the attempted murder of Pensinger
and her son.
At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor presented evidence of Payton’s
stabbing attack on a woman he was living with in 1973, along with convictions
for drug possession and statutory rape. As mitigating evidence, Payton
presented the testimony of several witnesses regarding his religious
conversion while in jail.
In closing argument, the prosecutor discounted the testimony of Payton’s
religious conversion stating, “you have not heard any evidence
of mitigation in this trial.” The defense objected that this statement,
by suggesting that the evidence was not legal and was improper. The
judge denied the objection, but instructed the jury that “the comments
by both the prosecution and the defense are not evidence. You’ve
heard the evidence and, as I said, this is argument. And it’s to
be placed in its proper perspective.” Following a vigorous argument
by the defense, stressing that Payton’s conversion was legal and
proper evidence which should be considered, the judge instructed the
jury to consider “any other circumstances which extenuates the
gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime.”
After deliberation, the jury unanimously agreed that Payton should be
sentenced to death.
Among Payton’s numerous claims of error on appeal, was that the
prosecution’s statement misled the jury and that California’s
jury instructions were inadequate to correct this. In its decision to
uphold the conviction and sentence, the state Supreme Court rejected
this claim, citing the U. S. Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Boyde
v. California (won by CJLF) which upheld California’s jury instructions.
On habeas corpus a federal district judge accepted Payton’s claim
and overturned his death sentence. Later, a three-judge panel of the
federal Ninth Circuit overturned the District Court and reinstated the
sentence finding that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996, the federal judge was required to defer to the reasonable
decision of the California Supreme Court. Finally, in 2003, an eleven
judge “en banc” panel of the Ninth Circuit reconsidered the
case and, by a 6-5 vote, overturned Payton’s death sentence, announcing
that neither the Act nor the Supreme Court precedent set by Boyde supported
the California Supreme Court’s decision.
CJLF has joined the Supreme Court review of that ruling to argue that,
once again, the Ninth Circuit has chosen to misinterpret clear rules
governing its ability to review this case in order to misapply clear
Supreme Court precedent and overturn a brutal murderer’s death
sentence. The Foundation is seeking a decision to reverse the Ninth
Circuit and further clarify the limits on federal court review of state
convictions.
Foundation Attorney Charles Hobson is available for comment at (916)
446-0345.
Foundation Legal Director, Kent Scheidegger, will be in Washington attending
the argument in Payton. He can be paged at (209) 926-6344. The Criminal
Justice Legal Foundation helped win nine United States Supreme Court
decisions during the 2003/2004 term.
|
