PRESS RELEASE

In a decision released today the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a District Court ruling which announced that there was insufficient evidence to deny parole to San Francisco murderer Carl Irons.  In the process, the court rejected a challenge to the authority of Congress to limit federal court review of state cases, an issue the court had raised itself.

In the case of Irons v. Carey, a three-judge panel voted unanimously to uphold  a 2001 decision by the California Board of Prison Terms denying parole to Carl Irons, who received a 17-years-to-life sentence for the 1984 murder of a neighbor in San Francisco.  Irons’ appeal of the board’s decision was rejected by a state superior court judge who found substantial evidence to support the decision.  Later, the California Supreme Court denied further review.  Irons then petitioned the federal District Court, which subsequently agreed to review the case on habeas corpus and appointed a magistrate judge to hear his claims.  In September 2004, the magistrate judge concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to support the Board of Prison Terms decision and recommended that Irons be released on parole.  After the District Court adopted this recommendation, California appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In May 2005, the panel hearing the case asked for briefing on whether a 1996 Act of Congress limiting federal court review of state decisions is unconstitutional.  The order surprised attorneys in this field, because the question had been considered settled since a 2000 Supreme Court decision rejected the argument by implication.

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation joined the case to defend the Act of Congress, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.  Numerous defense organizations filed briefs attacking the law.

In today’s decision, the court stated that an earlier decision of another panel, Duhaime v. Ducharme, was binding precedent that can only be overruled by a larger en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit.

“We are pleased that the panel correctly recognized the limits of its authority,” said CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.  “However, the tone of the concurring opinions indicates that they will try this bogus argument again with the full court.”

The following facts resulted in Irons’ 1985 conviction of second-degree murder:  In March 1984, Irons and the victim were renting separate rooms in the home of a San Francisco couple.  One day the couple told Irons that they suspected that the other tenant was stealing from them.  On the night of March 9, Irons accused the tenant of stealing.  The tenant denied guilt and went to his room.  A short time later, Irons returned to the man’s room with a rifle, shooting him 12 times.  When the victim cried out in pain, Irons pulled a knife and stabbed him twice in the back.  He then rolled the victim up in a sleeping bag and locked him in his room.  On March 19, Irons borrowed a car and took the victim’s body to an isolated coastal location.  After wrapping it with wire mesh and weighting it down with metal pipe, Irons dumped the body into the ocean. The next day, the body washed up on shore.  Ten days later, as police were preparing to arrest the landlord for the murder, Irons admitted his guilt. 

In its 2001 decision to deny parole, the Board of Prison Terms cited the brutal circumstances of the murder, the fact that Irons was using drugs at the time, and his history of violent relationships.  This evidence was later deemed sufficient by a state judge to support the Board’s decision.  In his review, the federal magistrate judge came to the opposite conclusion.  The magistrate judge decided that the crime an inmate committed cannot be sufficient to continue denying parole, despite the fact that no precedent binding on state courts has ever held that.

“In this case, the magistrate judge and the District Court did exactly what the Act was written to prevent, which is to void a state court decision because they didn’t agree with the result,” said CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.  “The law, not a judge’s personal point of view, should control what happens to criminals like Carl Irons,” he added.