Court

xperienced Criminal Defense Attorney in Boulder, Colorado explains Death Penalty Law relating to Habeas Corpus, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

Facts: A jury in the State of California convicted Mr. Pinholster of murder where he and his cohorts robbed and killed a drug dealer. After the trial on the merits (and the subsequent conviction that resulted), the prosecution sought and the jury imposed the death penalty for Mr. Pinholster. However, three weeks prior to the sentencing phase trial, the sentencing attorney sought and obtained an evaluation from a doctor who found that Mr. Pinholster suffered only anti-social personality disorder and no other mental illness. The attorney did not provide the doctor with documentation of the years of abuse Mr. Pinholster suffered since he was a small child. Further, seemingly the doctor did not know the young Mr. Pinholster was in and out of institutions until he was 10 as a result of mental health issues. From age 10 on, Mr. Pinholster had been institutionalized – first in a mental hospital and then when they folded their hands and gave up, the state conjured up some juvenile charges, and the boy then was incarcerated in the juvenile prison system in California. According to his brother, Mr. Pinholster hardly had anytime, since age 10, outside an institution. None of this was brought to the jury’s attention. The sentencing phase lawyer only called Mr. Pinholster’s mother who did him no favors – she minimized his abuse and the institutional periods, and claimed all her kids were good kids. According to Justice Sotomayor, the mother did not testify as a defense of her children, but as a defense to her poor parenting skills. Thus, not surprisingly, the jury sentenced Mr. Pinholster to death.

At the 35(c) hearing in state court (examining the (in)effectiveness of trial counsel as well whether the obtained conviction was (un)constitutional), the...