HIGH COURT OVERTURNS NINTH CIRCUIT TO
REINSTATE DEATH SENTENCE
Decision in Brown v. Payton Upholds
Key Jury Instruction
In a decision released today, the United States Supreme
Court has reinstated the death sentence of Southern California murderer
William Payton, convicted 23 years ago for the rape and murder of one
woman and the attempted murder of another woman and her young son. The
Court's 5-3 decision in the case of Brown v. Payton overturned
a 2003 Federal Ninth Circuit ruling which had announced that Payton's
sentence was unconstitutional because the prosecutor made remarks that
might keep the jury from considering mitigating evidence. The Sacramento-based
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief
in the case to encourage today's decision, 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.
"The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), adopted
by Congress and signed into law in 1996, was specifically drafted to
prevent the type of disregard for the rule of law that the Ninth Circuit
exhibited in this case," said Charles Hobson, who authored the
CJLF brief.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy confirmed this position.
"AEDPA provides that, when a habeas petitioner's claim has been
adjudicated on the merits in state-court proceedings, a federal court
may not grant relief unless the state court's adjudication of the claim
‘resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States.' . . . These conditions for the
grant of federal habeas corpus relief have not been established,"
wrote Justice Kennedy.
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
were 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, prevented
the jury from considering his conversion as mitigating evidence. 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 standard jury instructions in
death penalty cases. 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 joined the Supreme Court review of that ruling to argue that,
once again, the Ninth Circuit has chosen to misinterpret the AEDPA limits
on its ability to review this case in order to misapply clear Supreme
Court precedent and overturn a brutal murderer's death sentence. "The
purpose of the AEDPA limits on federal court review of state convictions
is to reduce the years and millions of tax dollars wasted in cases where
the guilt of the murderer is undisputed. The Court's decision today
further clarifies these limits for those federal courts which have been
reluctant to abide by them," said Hobson.
Foundation Attorney Charles Hobson is available for
comment at (916) 446-0345.
CJLF has helped win three decisions benefitting public safety
during the Supreme Court's current term.
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation helped to win nine
United States Supreme Court decisions during the 2003/2004 term.
|
