Opposition Brief — William Andrews v. Kenneth Shulsen, Warden

Supreme Court brief1988

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

lanl

**-* **

. ’

P " 4

' ‘

we Ae

aim

‘al

au £ 4

arr

AL 1}

: at ta,

A ra

Convictions

Such AC

Proper

And was

ntext )

_ -

“A meas

' vu

‘ c

y = v«

vv A

Piva

—~

B. PETITIONER IS PROCEDURALLY BARRED FRC

LITIGATING HIS CLAIM OF haCE DISCRIMI

ATION IN HIS OWN CASE BECAUSE IT WAS NEV TER

PRESENTED TO THE STATE COURTS; PETITIONER

IS ALO PROCEDURALLY BARRED FROM LITIGATING

HIS SYSTEMIC RACE OF DISCRIMINATION CLAIM

BECAUSE HE WAS FOUND BY THE STATE COURTS

TO HAVE PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED THE CLAIM

UNDER STATE LAW BY NOT TIMELY RAISING IT

ON DIRECT APPEAL, AND BY PROVIDING THE

STATE HABEAS CORUTS WITH ONLY CONCLUSORY

ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMcccccsceseeil

l. Petitioner Never Presented The State Court:

With His Claim That His Convictions And

Decth Sentences Were Tne Result Of Race

Discrimination In His Particular

eT TT TT TTT ET TTC Oe eee eT tt.

2. Petitioner's Systemic Discrimination Clair

Was Foun To Be Procedurally Defaulted By

The Stat Pamehhcecccessecsseseseeceoeeves oS

Il.

THE EN Ci! IT PROPERLY APPLIED THE CONTROLLING

DECISIONS e THIS COURT IN FINDING THAT ANDREWS' DEATH

SENTENCE WAS PROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT UNDE! Ti

PRINCIPLES OF ENMUND. Vc_FLOBIDA, 458 U.S. 782 (1982

AND CABANA_..V.._BULLOCK, 474 U.S. 376 (1986), AWN

PE RLY NIED REHEARING ON PETITIONER'S CLAIM THA’

TISON. V>._ARIZQNA, 107 S. CT. 1676 (1987) REQUIRE! A

REMAN: F HIS CASE TO THE STATE COURTS FOR A

REDE TERMINATION OF THE EXTENT OF HIS CULPABILITY... ..00+4f

aA +A

CAI PETITION! j N E PREVIC LY RAI [ T

” BLE CC TING” I ,» BE I PROCEDU RALLY A ROM

ISIN Ii F T FIRST TIM ON Cc Tl A °

DITIONALLY, THE CAPITAL SENTENCI? PROCEDURES I? TA

CONSTITUTIONA AND T GRA) I CERTI aN I

LOWENFIELL ° , 86-6867, 55 U. L.W. 38 (J

> ae [ N EQUIRE THAT THI COURT GRAN

C I IN T > E? CASE. coccececeeeeesesesseseeseces

A. PETITIONER IS PROCEDURALLY BARRED FROM

RAISING THE CLAIM FOR THE FIRST TIME ON

. , 7

CERT Nice cocooseveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeereeer eee

B. THE GRANT OF CERTIORARI IN LOWENFIELD DOES NOT

REQUIRE THE GRANT OF CERTIORARI IN THE PRESENT

CASE BECAUSE OF DISTINGUISING FEATURES IN UTAH'S

CAP TAL S ENTENCING

SYSTEM. cccccccccccccccccecceseccccccccsceseseel®

IV.

PETITIONER'S TTEMPT TO SEEK REVIEW OF A _ CAPITAL

SENTENCING STANDARD WHICH THE UTAH SUPREME COURT

ESTABLISHED IN ANOTHER UNRELATED CASE SHOULD BE

REJECTED BECAUSE PETITIONER DID NOT ADEQUATELY PRESERVE

THE ISSUE IN HIS OWN CASE; HE DEFAULTED IT FOR FEDERAL

HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW; HE DID NOT FRAME IT IN THE SAME

CONTEXT IN THE LOWER COURTS; THE STANDARD IS BASED UPON

INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE STATE LAW GROUNDS; THE

STANDARD IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER CONTROLLING DECISIONS OF

THIS C T; AND THERE IS NO CONFLICT IN THE CIRCUITS

WHICH UNIFORMLY CONCUR WITH ER FEDERAL Al STATI

J ISDICTIONS THAT SUCH A SENTENCING STANDARD I NO’

CONSTITUTIONALLY R a call

‘?¢ . = .

Severe os ea so a ee ee

| a

P /

| oe

— ee

Pants at vu lin ted C+ ‘ 41) | ~ 5 ? (} 973 > he

&wueweeaUei_ Ta xVUes =e ue bee ees ~* *~-*e. i+ > / *eeeneeeeeeeeeee s

: | ce . aA E 5» A Oona ,% ™ r 2

Focgd_va_Stcicklaod, 696 F.2d 804 (llth Cir. 1983),

- ’ TT? c Cc 4 +

Sane, Meee. GEG Cobe GSS (1986) cccccocccscccevcecesocccce 16

Furvao_Vv._Ge Gee Geweo SEO CASTS) cosceeceeseeeeseeseceoose 8,

. 77 5A 10R¢6 c+ "i r ’ Jer ?

3 iS » 677 F.2d 10€ 9UM Life)» £EU-G Se0s0

3 x , : oe . ; = - = =

685 F.2d 139, cect. deniede 461 U.S. 910 (1983) cccccccccce S7y 4,

—

- - * ' . “ 167 e

witGG Ya._weetigads 428 U.S. 152 3976) cccccscvccceveeseeeecees GS, 35%

, —

WW rrie ‘ Pp } C } IA 11)8a +> ” r “+

Beri ae Ya -iwaet ys 692 +40 Aid? 7¢t wes © ’ “eee *

, . ,'n4 7 r =

Seoseur 46C ewe sv ee aeesegeeseeceeeces oeeeeveeeeeeee

‘ w -* ww jor £7 t 5A ,y} &+ - reh'

Ven oeue weld . A-=xOWwkaw / « se 2e64V 2244 wéee ° @s¥.v

‘ 63 . ; a4 ; ac ' > ‘ 4

we Ven Sf * 0 7% ’ . *4-at? Sa" © : . . 7 4 **«e Ss

. . 4 ) ae we yu |

@aeeevweow ia. see . Vee 4Ve0 - =F 4 eee eee eee eeeeeneeeeeeee

€, © Wine? 207 358 10 ~

@u.e® JL auewak / . . 4 eeoeeee eee eee eee eee eee enee

aixaG_VYa-e2bGissr O42 P.4G OS Kia. i993 ceoeeeeeseseeseeseses

’ ° > | —- a: a. “=

J3SbEODVa- Ge 337 SO.20 1242 (MiSS. 1976) cccccccccccccece

y 4 5 ‘7 ,

JUZEB Va AOROSBe S28 VeSe 202 (1976) cccccccescccccccescccececes B, 62,

“~ A

T« her ; rate 2c > 4 we 1c

=* wueeOeee Ya wbebss * is o4 4 . LIS ,

, ; - . ,ORA c*7 cr

cext.e denied. 4¢€ ewe J ’ LIOR) cece eeesesresseesesesseees e OVUs

t , T , . . = 4 - 190R7 4

wEZSAOCSVa_LOCEOSELs See Fee 64 (8t If. 1987) ccccccccccee 4

L * « 438 ] SR 197 c

wes Oe ewe Laan Be O@e & ~ ~ . + se eeeeneeeneneneeneeeweeeeeee#ee#e —

‘ . r +. . a = — . . ‘ ™

wi tkweek ewe ta tiws&Sebusr ‘** <) O66 ‘ U.S.LW. 3! ar

6 (June 22, 19 COO Cee eee rer eresesesesesesesessesesecs 5-56,

64-6

uM k . 107 . 17 1987 , i

VemoneOezs Ya OSU 2 4 “ee LC. 1/56 198 eevee eeeneeeeneoeeneeenee ro 4

J 4 ’ i+ oA - - > , C Q°7 . - an

VraevseiOGS_VYa2_VYOUALEG_eiLales, 36S U.S. 46 (LOTS) cccccescccces a/

uv vor 2 7929 7 . ”

Vesuevteu_rtawuud? 46 3 We 4 32 198 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeee 45

Moor — Mo- i 7 1+ - AA

wei sess SG VYa Cea laase (Ve Fee « (i0C! Vil. BOGS) co scesevece ae)

-_— ~ . | *+ 2¢ s | an. 5 |

MVUCCSaYVYa-CSECASL» 4 Pe LL. £059 (198 ecocccccccccccccccccs SUG ’

e 77

IG, jf

Pp . Kubart > wp. 294 949 Tl? 1922)

&ewbekiLaKewes? 44 Ye he tu £49 (Til. 198 }y

+ . | s T - . | \ c*

cect. denied, 464 U.S. 86 [L29GS) cocccccececceceececceoees

wre

re)

‘ss

]

Der anel AA nict r € Meceart P , -aneaw

=* 200€L_AdoinsASstcator_of Massacbusetts_yv. Feeney,

sa >¢ IC Pe 7o.97

%< ewe 220 (iy FE SCCOSOSSOOSSOSSSSOSSSOSSSSESCOSSOSSESOSCSEEESESESOS zO- <4

; c + 717 A so ) le, }

Eueaed be Ya 28d,0 7 F.2d 44 (2 Cire), CEES CEDACUs

s¢ U.S. 102 | POT rrrrereeeeerrereeeriieertiereereerritTes |

> + Ww .

amen tate

,* Ff ; > +

#e2.1tasites

9 les

gL. week

Ue Ya wee6

-@eeunr i.

r+ V¢

_ ° “xeUens

‘ c

—- Oe 35

~¥a Pierce

20 857 (1

Ya.8h

- &a.eueHutl er

“ AAA

User 494

Lane ewes

P - 4

U.5- 878

oC’

- &e

34 U.S.

26 U

e 597 F

4 U.S.

oSe- 1 (

‘

;

«4G

}

* -

; cL

Vat

. .

eee

« 4U

‘Ve

59 U.S

266

_ 4

ee z*

24 4?

. J s/

BoE (1

1OoOn

1964).

om «a

° we

" )

eL-e é

eae

2o7 {

a "+

, . .

ede 12

. 5

Me &

4 r

2661

g FP

a &

WwW

«.%

(Utah

e SSct

86-6303,

Te)

982

ivd

- ’

eee

™ >

ece

eee

03)

enr

eee

ods

*-*

rida

ae |

7, 1

eee

*eee

eee

eeee

eese

eeee

vy 399

y :

lees

eeee

eee

sees

eeese

)

eee

82 (

9),

I+

eeee

eee

eee? 9

**e

Qo”

*-*

“7s

WwW

wi &

uw a

fee)

oO wi

qd 761 (1981),

Stéate_vea_Tayiors 304 N. ° 2

rt ©o £1213 (1983) ccccccceccccecsccccccccce SF

feck. deuied, 463 U.

mon

| &

Se)

tt)

_¥a Woods 648 P. denied,

9 U.S. 988 (1982) ccccccccecccccccccsccesecssccsecesseceses

9 ° . oe .A Ge:

3 ~¥e2_-VYOsbeg_ef3

eSe 55 U.S.LeW. 4942 (1987) cecccrccccces

[ae

’

73 U.S. 911 (1985) cccccccccccsecscscceee 15

Pa)

1u54 (5th Cir. 1°

Togowpsen_va_bypaugh, 8

Thewpsen_v._Lynaugb_I1, 821 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1987)........ 45

o 2676 (A987) cccccccceesccoccocose |

isQd_va_Scizona, 107 S.C

N @

css

Towoseod_VYa Saino, 372 U.S. 293 (196 Speceeeereeseseeeseeeseses 12-1¢€ ’ 35

T..¢ - : —_ 7 ae « @ a aer an a

avi Dek VYa_CUliay s S676 UcBe 3 (A9ES) ccocoveeeesecescecesoosvoece 20, 29, 31

$+ Creare ~ } \ ) , De Rohe F 3 Ida 4

auUaeki Ue ebb es BF Sd02_VYORL_VYa VOEODSILS 693 F.2d 64:3

th Cire 1L9B2S) ccccccecccccccsccscccesecsccscccccescccceccccs 4

7 7 cn} . 77

Volited_states_v. Mattoews, 13 M.J. “Vs (198 j en ba “ee eeee

: ,A 619 6 ae

SGeLEeZ Va ses klYr 40 oe L& o CL7 (2986) cccccceceseccocccesee 4

— . ‘ ' 4 50977 an

HeicecaAgGos_Vea eYSESEe 4 3 Ve . 44 hry): PPrerrrTerrrercvrrrrer:t Tee ’

r n 7S ‘4 a 7 (S+> Ci

Welcone_y._Blackburco, 793, F.2d €72 (5th Cir. 1986),

; ~ , ; ~\ ,

CSE Ee wewesn a / . Cte i JF&o (198 peeeeeeeneeeeeee “ee eenee 6

f } t ] 4 c Cc IC 7 4

Ose5QU_Va-LusaSi-n 81 +e o4 2tnm GSEoe SF secccocoocecces 66

y} r 7 .< ? Ag +} Cir 986)

ever Lat ewe Oeuaul 0 4 . ~ as - ° - v ’

rn née ‘> 4 4 ,a7 fA

Ccexchte gensede il » GBe J 4 peer eerereseeseseeseees

~— —— 5 . “4

POUT SOOD_Va _ HOE LIU al Oss0de 428 Ve . zo iy eoeeeeeeeeeneeeee

‘ . + 7) 7 w) 7) — 2 rn 7

eauwet wei La_webe bs 679 P.2d ? vO Ves e SQEEe SERIES e

_ }

4 U.S. 1 (198 COCHRE EOE SOOO SESE OEE OEE EE ESE SELES EES

Zant_Vvea-Sterbens. 462 U.Se 862 (1983) ccccccccccvccccccccsesese O1-G62,

5 ~~ -

' fa

té

ail

vo.

end!

try

foal

rr?

rs)

’

«4 :

> £ 4

‘ ao

+ 4

4 4

a \

4 +

. ‘

4 .

4 +4

> + es ‘

4 ‘ .

‘ “1

= 4 +4

i +

: oe

+ o4 }

Ms ~

rw)

”)

7S)

‘ ‘

rw ‘

3 Y

;

‘ .

he !

5 sr

: t

o/ ad

yy 4

“

as)

-_ iv

v c

u U

= AQ

9 wv)

yD 44

~ ‘

‘ rw

‘

bas

ro]

rw £

> :

+ Lane

3 4

: :

‘7.

. . ss |

s° ,

. ; "

7 be

‘ 4 -

5 4 1

‘ he

‘

wa ‘

‘ .

‘ -}

+? a

‘

3 .

s ‘

he -

Cc 4

" QO.

1 W”)

U 4 @)

5) -

ry 4

4 .

0 4

ha \)

) £

= 4

t ~~

~ ae

) po

4 4

L be

re)

. Ma

)

J +4

2 ir

‘

)

= @

4 be

et) eee

+4 f » v m& ¢ ‘ -

} om] ) ) 4 > 4 > he

: / | ha a da Ve a) j

yw 1 | 1+ u+- st uC - +

34 #9 vs v4 9 Ow HO OW = ao

> Ww O wu ° >w §* x ook vUw ha Oy

G wa VIE Ww ae ow 0. >--

~~ Oo Ouwrvoc io) oO cx 4) - y = 7 4

4 hy Serv CMW OM mf tet eH HY me D9 )

«<< 4 SS Mw GN yy, vow ett con) ) »>

ee v oO c YHYNUVEUZSA HHO TD rt a

Po w 3 O, er ng eoow weHow sd 0

. 4 f a ee eee ee ee 3 :

-~ 2 wW ,_nDa DD CV CwH we Os & + my

> Se ae a ee | oO Wo wSgqowvez,svanrtes

u%own GH VOouUNnN GWEC wu ha a UM eS

ioeow cw Z,zaNnNamo awawaooedsda

Dove YO DHD e,;1 vu TUG on NOD aS

So 9 Gert ww cu vc tE re) ie 3 S)

{(& @& x 7M UO HDeadgevarwdx&o U nC

1g of -~+ ‘x aru e>cCeurvrvuLkfccY

MH twee EVUVUVNON @ oO a wy 0) «+ >

- > we ¢ Pecde~ oVs Ow tT i ar | y

mow a3 9 &€ 3M G ms voce F

eee ee ud & O3N0YT EC 93H 300 >

4 ®v ~ + £s ¢ Owed a“ Occ #2 U a

6 > i] QH"W mu gD 74 Ihe we et zs ~ .

-o Ow aw Oaac om?) > ww ~ ww Oo a]

no I Hw we QVTeoBerIasBsagedeceaenran vw wu

: 7) an vw Cc > rae | Uf OO Ownmwvt ee

) O<¢ ‘ VaoUTrTDUoOO Oa VU +H wu i

ee Bae _& »@ -tLnN Yee J mT | -

nC » v av c.f wh ie OHNE OW ce Os i

Gn KOA A He YOUN DO cccwternr Ow )

J (i, ha Hite he 41‘OoOw @ 40 ‘

ty, « 4 Y9occ eS = i» ee Bee wn!) we om OD &

‘ “i ty eA Om > zO TMH BD ‘a :

; 0 T Ii- 1 3 vo ) iv

y 3 +74 @ woe nt et Ot ee

c Nm ouwe c 4 | ) ;

2 w~DTOWMcoiwvwcnva ke UgauaoeNHN,YG _

r23 ~t J irt + cL“ Zz ee 2

iu w 2 4 Teunac aoa mo #4

‘ 5s a ‘ »oO rt ~oaewmnm vei YB YC _

40 5 ‘ > om we i 2 wOoOE Geowvwnw Ce

LU se w& -ieee v + #oroc > tev i )

cs a 2D be Pe ome ee me eo arHvneA OWN r>yu *

vv © uw a, i ee ae es ae rtwwu Cc ft ni t&~ 9 —~

ID -« InQwD creanowenadedec YU nO

a | ~ € ot ee JO WY go~ ue ie) ae & 7 & [ /

ry ~~ @ > 7 ) ncuvuo d + °

a rt ts Mw sna Vdgdwsuent Oudgec er@eaeao3ucnN

~~ > ss ¢ »>o eH UL PH vou ouodwvudde syd

i] 1 he rw) ee a ae” ae ee 0x 70 cw ©

~ ) | 4 7) r-4 + 4 9 > us| > i) 0 ; 4 | ,

> Be} ) ~~ 7unOwD YU oy) VGH OM @ t Yow do

4 c Ig he 7 ¢ q ¢ LL vw ic a N44 et be rT

i> HD >D nmonc w OO Bs » Od «© OC cul ™N

re) 3 } ) 7 ae) p ) #¥ OL oo uw by I“ @ a 1

Swe u DQ > rH on Mt On D&I DW

La + Yat o ® cw ie 4 1 y OV

44 ? > uw cwvwne ‘ rN wT Ff “et

‘ be ) » @ _g 0 3 ‘ Vv 4 c t £ ‘ ‘

IP“ VDUOe A VFaUA HH ossavws ww fe Ur +H et

o € ©

Ancrews asked how much was in it, and Selby disgust ly said,

"five bucks." Andrews told Selby to “take the w le thing,"

which he did (3095). Orren heard mumbled conversation between

the assailants, but could only discern Andrews saying, “I can't

jo it, I'm scared” and later Selby's reply to Andrews saying,

"about thirty minute " (3092-93, 3095, 3187). Andrews then ra!

upstairs. The back door opened and closed (3092). The door wa

not rebolted (3213).

Selby remair 10% tairs wit tr victims for the

rinai tnirty inute r tf ¢ r te ti ; 9 ¢ He shot

Carol in Cf r 6 whid | ; i r 101, 3 34) & I

t Cortney 2 the t 1). I

i t later, rré t ' f z ear hi

t $101). Two mi : , tanley, shot

} ‘ Selby left ‘ Michelle ask

St ley if he was all fri “ t to reply

. ’ had | ch , ’ and a bullet

7 zs” int rren's ! : All Ef foregoing shot

= fr t o4 j 3 2182, 219 ; $, 3101-02).

lby untis Michelie a t k her int a back rg (3103-04,

S12 - Orrer ntinuec to fel leat i - When Selby

broucht Michelle back fifteen minutes later, she was nakec. She

had been raped (3106-10, 2176-79). Selby laid her down at her

ay inte pla and then ran upstairs (3109). Selby returned now

armeé with Andrews' .38 caliber revolver and shot Michelle in ths

back £ ti head (2144, 2192, 3109-10). Stenley was then shot a

Orren had been able t hear to that time, now ceasec (3110).

Selby tried to discern if Orren was Gead (3112). He

then attempted to strangle Orren with an electrical cord (3110

3119). Only by tensing the muscles of his neck was Orren abie to

6 Police officers located five .3€ caliber slugs at the scer

which had all been fired by the same gun (1892, 1906, 1910, 1913,

1918, 1922-23, 1942-43, 1986-93). Another .38 caliber slug was

. ré ved from Stanley's head during the autopsy (1938-42).

‘

reé

w er

~j ct

’

sS¢

“a

: ‘ a

a v4

rate

r ew

ra ’

Ge,

20herLr

r r

i st

©eviag

}

. ‘

~ +}

« +

aah <

++ ~iic

* he

“a icw

; Pa

+ = =

rcder

. ae 4

y Walk

rida

N>?>o UO

‘'y ©

~—

faa)

Aad

i ‘ 2 a

rac . =

Vi 2a

¥ ’ ' °

. >

4 a .

~ + ae | 4

‘ ‘

y wOeic A 4

+ ‘

4 L i

‘ , + ’

~€ >

J irizea

ve ; > ‘

; ‘ >

L ca L

‘ °r

; €; , °

Vee “iix

= ft

ons

ere

es,

r }

ur nh

Jiv

Licat

ilty

avate

‘ ’

agg

rPAice

rcdict

he fe

} Cc

Se é

‘ e

¢ +

i C

lrtwa

say

a .2

naw

ho ,

tne voice

a eh

UrsS O. AMI

4Qy a .

\< i

w+ ’

t, wil e

" Da

A s.ce

r thr ¢

1 UNE °

ro. ery.

° ° a}

Lave ei

» + he - -

erai distr

_ 4 4

DDe 4 , 4

ior

-* - ,

hat "On¢ f

} ? +

ywUU et

Three a

snet = ays

ing” a ster

-68). Two

at the Hi-

writing dow

etc. Selby

y and looking

after the

caliber

cd Orren Walker

astebasket n

ne event nave

was

- ‘

anus eh

rings

mh eriijt

au af

antane

DSuk

bas

re)

of another

nation

ppreciate the

ea ¢

> -

e ‘

»e@e

“i &

I1gG@g

Cer

ria

e777

2/4

rar

Psy

4 ‘

" £

rr?

“4

+ }

i" ‘

. _

L /

; >

Ped

rt r

eer

eit

;

avr'a

rr<

rt ‘

» £

, —_

hey

par

we)

hor

‘nee aul

Ouwse&

weaUti sGube

’

i @

«4

Lan

ro)

rw)

5 |

sue

> ‘

week eae e. =U

«ve

ase ee

“i

42 4

”" ia

£ t

#~ OD

hs bas

) )

+e 4 Ae

is +

‘ —.

E {

a ed

0 M4

‘ rs

)

- ~ort

f +

) ‘

-4

4 ~

“aT 4

4 >

‘

— +

1) 4

“4

aidy

. ‘

wus *

4a -88U_%

faa

anal

and

an]

ons

fad

. Cc} .

Te _Li_aniitaw

fad

provide

to the

eg WNC

> ’

idDYy

the

AT AC

enci

y 7

~~“ & +

lacki

rict

jati

Tenth

-o

ne 22,

ain

videntiary

2d 1228,

Supporting factual

1233-34

nal

RR Se

as na

{ + conci ry 2 ina yuate. aG- at 1266.14

r rr mr - ’ ’ '

ml eparat proffer to support hil clal that Utah

>, c . . r + 7 mr c -

2th sente i y ’ ~ 22 GCiscriminatorily pos the

+ , - , ne

J€at penalit ep! Or those whose victims are wnite was al

found wholly inade at t ece itate any evidentiary hearing,

, , , am ~~ : , —— . P re

Fe2G at 12£09- . Aithnougn the sentn Circuit, unilkKe thi

a y ° : 7) ‘ 7 ~ 7 ¢c ) "

Court 1 McCleskey_v.a_Beud, 10 me CC. L/ot (1987), found tha

oe - 3 ner r aa v\7 far ® — — + ? + } c | + .

t citi rst Only ro.rer a appropriateiy formal sStucy tnat

~ . vw r . r bed c

generates sta Sticalily Significant result (Of disparate

imnar-+ a \ F T/. ne r ‘ r the ¢¢ + - +h r ic |

arpa il Wisad a S 4 4 » - ?) Cad Ve a= 4 CadUoda

> _* , sir ¥ r ad » >

Variaole t Dtal a evicentiary heart! thi Claim, <

) } * 7 r , ' . r r

F.2d at 1269, the < rt found that Andrew proitfer di not ev

> ‘ > ” >a y ] ‘ ’ +<¢ > s | - > re

cCasry thi 4 SEL ta ara. A pite ti 4e~-year Nistory ‘

, ¥ r con + ur ) r "

thi case, his proffer id t even reflect a develor t of the

evi r that 1 available a t provi factual oasil

for relief" r addré« "other causal factors, uch legre f

oi ;

anal liiuStrate, } nd 1 A nde Petition Ct the Jistrict

Court, atta as i C, he stated that he wa a black,

le, nor tah re * had been impover hed all hi lite,

ar his victi wer 2uCaSians, life-lor resident £ Utah, ar

. a - + ’ > > ’

pr inent bers of the local c unity, a that se facts

actually infl nce the tat police, pr ecutors, irt aT

° ¥ 7 " mt . >

jurors 2 their decision aki in thi Ca ° second Am. Pet.

at: 20. H failed allege specifies to port thi laim.

a . .

a rte UroOr received racialiiy pl cial Oo jnicati

ir hi trial, but he failed t identity what they were. Id.

at 22. He claimed tha the race of the defendants wer

pr it tly mentioned in the local pre 1 among citiz of

r ; ” ’ +} y uw ? ~ -

Davis and Weber Counties but he faile to provide specific a tc

} . } } 3 7 ’

wi thi occurred, whether the article hac racial overtones

~A 7 ’ no ] c , ] > "

bey identifying individual as white or black, whether ths

? +, , ; ) rr ? + ¢ -

jurors had read ar be influenced by tl articles, or how thi

, wv - " 7 . . + r : a |

actor adver ly affected or prejudice his case. He generally

iaimec tnat nonewhite jurors were excluded from the trial bt the

? mr , . i | . q 71) ‘ }

use of prosecutorial peremptory challeng anc by jury selecti

techniques which excluded from jury eligibility the majority of

» ¢ ? A Jo} 3 : c om a TP

non-white individuals in Weber and Davis Counties. ig. Again,

= | 3 wsa } 7) “as =

e éiieq to provide spe to support these aliiegations.

that in every capital case in Utah,

ave been members of the L.D.S. Church and at

his trial, the Church's doctrine was that blacks were

o whites. This was part of his broader claim of

nan assertion of

fered no facts to establish

i al

eum":

reo ry

La |

_ ¢

7am

;

mere

% oe 3

™

& rr

hat such factors, assuming they d exist, had actually

prejudiced the juror: n his case. The allegation did not

incicate that Andrews even knew the religious affiliation of the

jurors in his own case.

15 The proffer is found in Andrews v. Shulsen, 802 F.2d at 1269

it is taken from Andrews' Second Amended Petition and tl Tent!

Circuit even took into account more current data alleg: ir

Andrews' brief on appeal.

aggravation involved in the

rn " ec

The Tenth Circuit

. n ef

reé rd, that the Dastraict Co

f mites 2 » das

‘ taxCueeweueta 28s0r an de ~«

as required peti

s 4 hol 4 + 4 : t a *

ra fairer r ni tria

ity entiment and trila

nang r Ve le, Continuance

; £ Th oe

OUd F.e40 at lé . me Vistr

fact on these clain were a

4 +> crate r* . + ,¢ ‘

ta rts; ¢t t fu

» fone a chat the ¢

: ; a that t r tha

peri where 24 4 Jur

Aa s u ra 4Ga ase Pe I

ai. ta ir icating a

wer . t improper inf

> * hetw ss >

, ‘ > .

44 2U-. tn Latte ial

‘ 72 ; ,, } ~ "

Law~ee@u@eul -* ~ -~t£& P 2

: —- _

] Ith Cir. 1970), found

- osy 1€V 1 Spt if.

; a4 .

C ° PP- at 410. st al

1 1 nt, petitioner ha ‘

any juror t publicity r im

r between trial phases.” 6

eV rehearing, Andrew for

affidavit detaliing statisti

. L P :

presente had the District C

did not attest to the accura

€fidayvi -+ r fs

affidavit als contain fa

his appeai wa take He at

to his petition for certiora

r he ; . eo

proffered to the District C

arr } cr . vu

On appeal. Respondents neve

rehearing refuting the relia

- a ) 4 = - ao .

Statistical data. This coun

. ~ r na shea

brief as Appendix D. Rehear

be shown, ndrews continues

r + the ,de

Nn < tne adce

reu > A

reveaiec

-n

he never

ould have"

questior

fers Andre

of eviden

rma

{

i @

ict

}

‘

;

‘

’

“y

leg

pec

eo Ff

+ -

t n

Wilda

lana

_ - oe ae ¢

02 F.2d at 1269.16

und, after review

—_ oad _ om ine

app.l i the prance

r further eviden

ited Cilall as ¢t

ros nit ten ae r

> rvs 4* *\-7F |?)

, refusal to grant

ration motions, etc

concluded that th

veloped in and re

ne rings wer ned

—r ae ‘ .

incid Juri a

to a napkir:

7 r , + ¢ >

t phere or that

> Fr , q

3 t trial rd

r " £

pha ° : .

+ ” + ir Ba

. Y w + ~ £ * + a; 4 .

’ A

Maxse¥eiaer 423 F.2c

r too * lu r

evidentiary nea

bed ther +} e ‘ ‘

ther tha

re wa actual it

ation durin thé

at 420. rir 11\ ,

in Subdm1itte an

Cialnie he "would

evicentiary heari

w facts and data.

portedly occurred

aftidavit as Appen

this material was

thus outside the

ed a counter-affid

alidity of Andrew:

t is attache tu t

tually deniec. As

factual data on

he lower Ourts u

ad he been given t

urt is the adequac

de t the District

1t Dut never perc

an]

Vener

7o)

} Al

—

Do Ww

D «4

-*c

Ww) 4

)

er.

"™ o)

+? 2;

+ he

—_

‘

49 4

~ ta

3 «a

Vv Al

W) )

wo )

fam

] )

wae -

i --

“4 ¢

7) bee

“

“y

? .

> Yr

Let

~ @

~~ &

> w

4 a4

el +s?

re] J

iy +

mae i

> et

cmN

;

v E

a Ww

> .

vw ~

1 -

+ w

™ @

“4 4

4 )

“4 Le)

4-4

ee eee

<2 )

iJ «

rt v

— €

f -

u -

’ bse

rw)

1 4

re)

Let

vrs

re)

: ’

)

“_

uU >

a bh

“a O

mu UO

4d on

bi es

5 O

eae

DD Ww

of)

#”

rw)

° .

yi |

4 *

\ be

ion

eae

€) «04

n-«

‘

‘.

“~ w

5 ¢

4 bh

» av

+ a?

. @

i, +

a a

vy +

ad ’

;

~ ‘

oO 4

re)

‘

0 w

‘

a? eae

hae

‘

“+

Wd --4

w) }

4 +

‘

™ +

»| _

ti «

}

‘

: 0

J >

4 -

v ba

=) ’

oo 4

ow =

us L

4 be

) re)

‘ 3

< ra

)

z ‘

) +

- -4

“4

' ba

;

. 3

‘

“4

jury

7S)

Zing

eri

~ +

larac

bd |

plicatio

re)

-«

“~

ro)

Rete

on]

’

»4

‘

—_—--—-—_ ——- —- —

’

bas

) <

Se be

~ .

+4 )

‘

s f

7 }

a? T

Vi - UY

) v

i= , ad

] i) ;

= } 2

be 0

+4 ay

-/ t

) ~

j * _

=) >

ba J ba.

) i

‘

re . re

‘ o ‘

}

+4 ! f

2 { o4

4 ‘

oul “4

> +

’ 4

)

> £

x 4

. -

= ‘

u r

-4 +

ae]

J ~

a4 i

- -

a] QD

—

4 ‘

be o

4 +

le )

»" .

y| +

> ~

J =

7 4

4 Lo

4 .

4 4

OQ.

rs)

vam)

re)

’

’ P t

ave ew ee

e ,

weve

«4

. 4

4 :

" r4

‘

} )

) >

‘

x }

7 _

‘

wt kh

of >

- oe

4a G

Lal

)

* we

rw)

+ 4

ed ort

4 st

‘

Yu)

-4

“F

ba he ,

Ww ¢ / me

rw) “4 tb

tert i he

> »& 3 f

ro) " —

vr) 4 1 ~

“4 } * WwW be

“ws t 7 ¢

+4 .

ry 4

uw ‘%

4 4

‘ ‘ ;

+ he » «a ‘

y+ 7. 4

[ [ ) ‘ }

c+ @ £

“aw [ o/

a - ae

he +

1 a y+ ?

oa } ’

u @ @ i

+4 . “4 .

u™ YY »

oi |

he x

4 DO we °* ¢

‘ 5 | . ‘

+ t i

ba . ; .

»¢ .

. &-- + wi G

i . ‘ ‘ ba

i7~t + ,

vy < .* *

io)

i) . . ‘ ‘ @

“a hw “4 4

C ‘ .

J cg > Ww 44

4 ‘ ba :

> ; sc —T

4 ‘ ‘ t ‘ }

- 44

DSCte

wtbe_

ect_ire

ake

rve

wea

4 ~

ba )

=] a

+ .

a] |

us -

4 ba

: 4

“ ba

rw)

-vaee’

—_- 7"

Atweudeat

ee ee 8

iexe

rs)

rw)

@eexwear

~ its

tna

ven

fai

‘

tha

Tit.

jur

r - , > 164

wewvitO @t Se

mumericdadsa prt

eis ,

— + 7 .

ih al

xe =

> - w

: ,

| |

‘ =.

uM ++

vr n. sn). ee

cr?

Petiti

a | nr

rtion

ir t

: >

Serr -

€ é

. > +

U -

ert

“> z,

se eeu

a |

Our

c '

}

~ie

> &

’

reé

. r

* 4

= =

iLa

* 4

UY VV.

is g

’ ?

ity;

, ¥

VU}

ec ¢t

‘ >

“xe.

Up in

“toa ; .

~- Cu a-

the }

; K + r

’ ; +

;

ica

. ‘

ws , s

> ‘

7 >

, ;

- ;

> . .

> >

> t<

> - . . +

‘ ' >

; >

=e eae *

;

= 4

A a

+ wr) Ty €

fone

é é

é .

}

t? re

2 2 SS S|

® er .

Veen &

NS -« é 2

auc

‘ +

‘ , > +

rFeiisga

-ré ;

re ucd

s ‘

Or pein

42 ~

” A ri

expre

red ¢

t Iw

> " e

Pe.

Pos

‘

ney

aga

zat

«-_*

‘

; a

NIA +

‘ L

ati

lil

itd

-Sc

2 >

‘

cc?

‘

; 4

}

~~ *

_—

‘

.”™

“7

)

+ }

thn

ww »

way

4 <

r a

‘ s

rye

ré

‘

; i

‘

“+

;

‘

tt:

‘

}

’

error

T ?

LOTCS

Ee JUE

‘=e

Lawn’

r+ :

rt, f

that

eer

+} ,

LalM,

ef +

thei

perf

- »/*

‘ t ¢

ne tis

< it

+ ;

rT 2

= |

’

‘;

ave

eee

> we

Lai

¥ “

r ¥

4 4

4Ga

;

~ 4

4 A

'«

lé

Ww)

ata regardi

vw a

7 Uu

to proffer

«4

PS)

2_UWlisys

=e §

e Torr

-/ a-eeuv

J a

“| +\

it i

4 "

La j

' io

e~ f~ i

tr «.! J!

J rT)

Cy bl '

aun

>a! 7 4

mi ZI

a 4

a ! rr

sx |

ited

- 1<

i? at

rere us

Cx La,

“) '

24 A

a yre

ee i

ld « =

«<D 1

ait

d 4

a Ee |

7. eM

re Cy |

Owes OOCu

re)

Vv)

re)

ery

> +

hs >

i} .

_* ’

“= -

« ‘7

=“

= '

‘

+ r ’ ’

Lion. 1!

— ~ +

tact wit

} surore

the juror

foarrina -

rei rring t

r iA

tne 4 ide

r i + ter

"Ty ° +

i i . Ur t

iec UroOc Ol

e, + +

moe “2s La

> w the e x

‘ y

4 =e uve

ry + ,

. = aww

tt vetoes’

ai i >. 2 3

» s23euve®

r r , ‘

& | va

[ U re

, +} + thy

, ¢ °)

~\-#

’ ==zxee’ “=

iCiagi priva

r y ’ >

i i 3 <

a erifr w

r ¢ he

> ; " ’

a .

‘ , art > =

: E t

ici : 4

’ ‘ :

ry eS:

IOLiAC fF > |

4,14 . . .

+ he ry

a 7 >

+ ’

“ icagoO,

wee

‘

fed

ee?

= wu

’

AGa

¢ >

i va

“swe,

> >

wie -

ee ee

woe

Tne

. .

> ‘7

-«

: is

tne na

nit i

nhita }

rir :

ri ] Wi

» ¥ svcd

i .

> "

, ’

La =vVve

A aut

, >

he ,

“ 4

> r

+i r

~¥ 4a

ia. 4

~¢ *?

» > |

s ; s

+ +

. ~ se

. we

} ‘

v« rs

re)

eee weve

wee wl

os a

ne)

rw)

—s ©

re)

“a a

TT -<4

uw &

ee ©

’

ryt

y .

‘@

} hw

Claims deal

Oe wes Oey

rw)

ee ee et ee

tioner

6, | t

naoea

‘

’

if i

‘ oF

i 3

r ’

: + i

gu —'

" > >

wiia ‘i

? " .

é .

a jua

the } i

i" is:

> r

MUSt tt

Aicr

Cispaltat

ctart +

tOvd \<

effect

. . . .

‘Ai

-*f? fe

prorier

» ce ¢

SO as <

i rte

Cau a4

> mir

i »AVi

r ew Ve

= ie & ”

vr<

~ ot

rr?

& &

Qa.

nal

cr?

e f

‘ -

i }

, »

‘

> +

lcai

ing

a §&

‘

pena

t an

resu

rhand

nang

tr @it

I .

- y

c “ws *&

avicc

not ¢t

ped t

. @

’ 4

ai a

1iec

Oo more

cr?

ry cr

Statistical patterns of disc

one

mmr

inference,

that his stati:

system in Utah

rgument that '

sk that racial

eterminations

nstitutional ur:

on for Certior:

t-f1 it ¥ -

es yf c ity.

“ois ‘ t ni

Ss t heart

iety’ > >

1tiz and

ne ‘ tnelir

Jisparat

ni at ae «

= e ’ = —2

howing t Cala

ry she ind

itutionally

retion in Amt

a ipital

Thi presu

OL y tematica

st l j eral

at snerates

, ing for t

;

avati involv

s f the seve

a | ; intere +

§ 24794 r

: ‘

4 > -

imination

~ wx =

i ¢i

Cita

ret

4 a4

fend

her

ec rx

» >

;

feder

te c

edure

Yr i!

s, it

the

erw

UliLt.

,anat

¥ >

ry ¢t

wo!

» t

‘ .

t wi

‘

;

‘ » I

r +)

wert

> ¥

ror ft

fede

§ i

have

nme :

, a

. ‘

> +

\< i

Vicer

Xx} il

‘ +

uM "

Vu =e

r +}

a }

Aol ¥

‘ +

4 saw

iti

zaii

A |

e @

;

‘

“- s

’ n

att

a a

7 +>

pia

64,

‘

Sil

‘

[tr

sé

‘

* j

}

udica

abeas

ase,

t, re

s§ tre

pe t

rial

1769

I i

‘

iti

tir

wed

“whi a

i Aut

auit

‘

a ps

eet

}

4 iid

ave

he 1

> ? ¥

Lea

4 >

}

‘

re.

‘

L€

een

er e&

tir 19

<< -~-

federal

if this

end a

ient vw

lentily

—

ke ” ‘

a |

he ry'

‘

r tne

o>tacte

year ni

‘

lé t

‘

ne ~ * > '

it f

he we .

* hin

do wit

7‘

‘ ‘

“i= @e @ ©

aveenel

)

~~4e4

24uvUle

ytner

tora

er t

‘

; €)

Pt a

it a

tee '

rr ‘

Se pa

ester

er e

> Ane

‘ ’

_oF

; rf

he Ut

’

> .

»**. .

| an

>»

ao re

ial

}

ror

> Fr

tri

pet

rat

ter

nap

zat

op '

‘

€

A -~

;

‘

sit

r "

S he

Cia

s .

impr

fre the

J iced @2

ick

? Be ? r=)

I ri

’

C ri

-~ «Ve “

. +

; — ~%

ai 4

. +> +

} that

or erveda

r+ vs

oftere t

riai cc

ect then

ier nm cdi

hed as Ar

t he was

an? beca

~ 5 r

Dias, !

ciailm.

I it |"

Laci i

; | ,

I }

. " ‘

t f ra

ent

Ati

wal

‘

}

[rt

tana

reé

[

’

;

nm ¢

€

’

uly

ere

, ;

nat

} ‘

4 <

ane

r é

ea ‘

Petitione

th)

red,

< is

*?>

}

> *

9 >

; -

‘

*~*

his

the

show!

any

nal

anal

Sriet r ,iTre t eal

i attached a Ar

: . - _

a) Ad : . s a a

ap pe ian t . petiti f

” . 4 2

, ‘ v ‘

> ~ ’

: ’

: bed Fr ns

we.t ’ .

7 . £ . ‘ .

: e*

‘ . " >

> . .

, ‘ . ‘ -

-* >> .

. a ¢ < i" ‘ ‘

es . ~

‘

4 4 weit

r °

&GAdsay a

ta.Ouwest ’

r la ha

noulic ha

(2)

rw)

4-4

> he

‘

7 4

‘

ci. a4

)

-r

‘

’

= *

‘

-~F

. r

‘*

. . -_== La =!

> ‘ > > ; " .

-' : . =e

° >

4 wo P «

oe 4

. =

. -

)

’ . .

- ad > .

> > wer

‘ r

‘ r r reé ea e.

s t.y i 4

. £74 ;

a = _* 4 .

‘ be " ‘ feder

4 4 i LLiaci i€

ti i : >curere

+ le 1g r ra

. ‘fF . v-« - ; re 4

+ -* not > - j :

€ A a+2e .

— . ‘

t 2 2 s aGee

Tar ’ ‘

ral sai y ; P|

c [a . a y

' +} y

‘ s ‘ va P

‘ > hi =

, ; a \

‘ > ‘

— ‘

. -* c - > - 4 “wesw =} eeews’ +

> >> ‘or > > ‘ . > & » >

‘ ; ‘ ~ 4 . ‘ . ‘ 2 Gia

‘ ; > n > .

f 3 ea os: : ‘

. * 7 ¥ > “er

s as . : i 4 > ‘ : -

‘ > . " ’ > .

‘ > » > ‘ ‘re . - 4

¥yatla ‘ ~- ave ‘ ‘ ‘ s a

‘ " > ’ . ‘es [v) . . ™ P P.

. > . ‘ ies : : ° eee wes La yee eeee . °

‘ 9 bed 9 > > >

. 2 + > ; Led > > ™ «@ _

; : a * i t ict i : ~ i a4

_ _ t t Led e: . ‘

‘ > e 7

> ° ew

‘ . > > > > " *-¢ >

‘ - wae - ‘ s a : -

> > e ss 4 ‘

+ ’ “=~ yee La @eeuenu l ’ ° ° - ,

‘ > >*-F ‘ ’

- » , i 4 i

> > ‘ > " > ‘ ; . 4 +>

s , 2 , : 4

. ‘ r A y °

- "24 ~~ > ; *

‘ ti +? r “

t t t ‘ Wu ~ + yn @

‘ ‘ > ‘ n > . 3

“ s : “ ‘ , ~ a & y 4 ;

. > > . ‘ ’ = 7 n mre P fr ~ +}

, ; s ‘ ‘ ; s =) 4 o , ‘ a -s

> " > hic > 4 =)

i ravi s +ai ex, atu iis Ciagiles

ua . . . we Wh " - or

al t

‘ ‘ *- - . mau ce * ce J2¢2& * Se . * «a - &

‘ .* “* ‘ <ws Ac .« 2% =- < =e aes

+ > a ¥ ¥ ? >

: ria r - ra ai i Sy =. i race

, ; ‘ ; 2 + na > +}

pt ta s 1 , a ‘ i “CC. ida were wie

. ’ > > > . . > 72 ay + re + > ‘

if : ri J r < a7 2 ) ; aity Statute .

* > > a. > 7, > q oa nw he }

- . Ly , ‘ s - 2 : s “wis g . si s

> ’ > - + ‘ ~ . y

i it | ‘ whl 1 rina@lid C clude untid

; ‘ ; - a ver tr ©eai ar ter ni > Vi ti |

a . A ‘ ‘ if y ) £ f >

. ° => s vu “> =“ ° ’ ,

. * . a * ’ see» ss a “ff ”

‘

’

. n r ‘ ° > r

e¢ P . ca » as . .

> " fir > +a

s s > 4 a =: ~a

‘ , Th « ’ ‘ >

, Ss i? . ‘ _ > ~

ti s , r ° . [Cs we ‘ ~ i

- + | > r

. »

r . tow + .

' - = ee -

. > , > ti

’ = ’ x

= a \

7 ’ s

> > >

n + >

’

‘ y by nes

- s ‘ ‘

>» * , *

a, ‘ FF

sue = - La “sean l . .

‘ — (

pe’ y

at ei, A@ILAICME ° A 4 e I

} +a ‘ ‘ +, > ’ ‘

4 ‘ ii ‘ 4 s C

> have heer , edura

> ré + ’ > ‘

eeu’ t .

> . » @ ° €4

er *

}

819

*-< >

i) ¢

‘

a”

So" éo

—

‘

+ ;

‘

. i

; \

. 7

’

» +

+ he

‘ ‘

titi

r “

- [

flere

acti

[Twi

t rr

, ach

’ >

a |

+ ‘

‘ &

—

"der

e¢

; >

ter hi

-Ce 6124

‘ ‘

‘ .

—

’

+ °

ror

. >

— .

’ >

‘ Fed

re a

2 he

;

> .

cc LM :]

4 re)

J y ‘

% as SG ‘

“ Ss :. 9

7 ‘

- * A s +

ye zs 9

srt ~

+ t a © ha

be be “4

Pe) ‘ ry

™ 44 ww

ceo - )

“OD Ss J 4

> wo

nv & tw &

oe c “a 3 P

0 vows 2

+ +7 _ s ~

| ce. > ¢ ,

4 ‘

“ {) ‘ (oe ~

a) 50 Q

cS sw

«) wcn OD

4th wk

o +4 ) 7 +

ba } + QO 9

Ys @

y) survyclowew”Yd

©) ee ee

“™ Ue Y

a ss “ = 9

xe c # ‘

<u 4

; ‘ ~ ©

‘seca >

° x= ow @

‘

rv)

Le)

\ > :

et + ‘

4 s | 4

‘

‘ -

: .

-«

’

a ti

ate

* 4

«=

’ >

. .

Ja.

a |

wll,

» 1

reé

‘

+¢

» &

’

hé

E [ 4

nm ¢

¢ +

Of »

©€aua

a ‘

1 r

lve

ize Ge

> .

’ +

EA’

‘ ‘

’

; .

™ --*

> ~ &*

1 f

irew

vehi

at Lt

: ?

| Cc

5] i)

”

@f ‘

‘A

~ +

anc

aft

‘

, c

> 5

hel

y ‘

rat

ror

eeu

‘

io ¢

+ }

, |

> &}

* ’

} fa

, *

ee | f

Ww er

fal

-&«

‘

cr?

land

(

, > > P . i tr > v . ? a har > ‘ : . -

eS lts, wever, g at ~proc ura@i Dar tv fecerai review

> eit * 3 _— c t ; . 7 44

- 4 Ciist Gppait . = POsL A ARS VYa-wlibur 4 Fests VP

‘ ‘ ,no7 1 a ?

4i/- 4 4 its , ’ 46 ewe 2Ve 170% Gatasaag

" 462 : } ‘19 +. United Stat .

Aeweas elias ‘ ome 2USE 1983); Yostec_ebslLes_€s-itea

xe = = = La eee @uew ald ’

> . ° ¥ . x 7 ¥ ~ a

r reiia E ral bar aS an aiternat Y I ici }

> . > | _ >» , 4 . > . - — >

uftfaces t bar fecerai: abea review; t Ss‘ interests tnat

r n+ ~+? AO? ? : = y » . * >

pre - t wnetnert 4 aca isi Vase DI Urai Geriaus i

> _ . > ¥ . > > > Lea

fo..owecd \ ) i i C tne rit & sté oP may rea

- ’ > y . ’ e¢ .

tne rit cial reiy t 71 ju. C rfracul 2

+ + ‘ 9 > > £¢ .

~ + > _ _ -~ uF > ’ * . > > s+ “

s : ‘ . : ‘ auUiubesv_ tat iveervueet . ,

> } > 4 " > ‘ ‘

s* a ov =k @ ee * a “ak @ & & ° ° 7 .

. . — ; 44a © ¢ 196 . L

| Ah * ’ = & » * eevekwe ? vv ° ° 4 ‘ “s* - i. ‘

. é . y ' é ; 44

=x fu koew ? ‘ . -i- “4h , @&u.o , o¢ 7

‘

‘ 932 °) hers nr ‘ ‘

= ~* weaver * . . bed ‘ et Cai i “

. ‘ > bh = . ¢ > > af re +, ¢ #4 tag

Pasi ‘ .a it laa i A ’

€< . + > rreé ° ‘ . > ‘ ‘ s

+ = = . » © = = = =< ’ wee eaw ee. * == > ne &

r & 64 ‘ 7+ ms 79 7

ie Yack eee Be ee e<« . -? eae . < uae &&

& 2 ; r } , > > >

a bd & te we 8 : 4 ~< ; « . J ~sie ‘ | .

. , , i . ‘ y

Acar - 4 s . . ; y s AS =F i @

‘ . " " y ‘ y } ry ; ’ rn . —

¢ ew i

, wna par [ rai | revi r DoODvect Va

— =" . . ag a

—_se @* eweve’l . °« - - . ~“ - . . *~-* ‘ ; ho ts & .

, ‘ . ‘

Geustu? , 2’ ©. te ‘ : .

’ > > ’ . >

> y ‘ ’ ‘ _— hr. Io ¢

~< . ‘ ~“—4 . hal ‘ . . ; . | ‘ i ‘

. > =: * . » > is i+ . h = ré

Dy >t2 rt , i it uit ‘ i [

he ‘ ‘ SY £eic + } . : . iofa >

| U . eG -_x¥eaOau? SC Ve . 3 4 pr C rai ,Ciad ‘

‘ > ‘oe . " " ‘ " y ; " ‘

: 2 @i i < rt va L¢ [ai na a revicw dai € . wi

‘ , . nA “Fr ; ‘ 4 ; rye +r iw - .. ‘ >

=| i ¢ .) P . 4 4 P € i" AGid ~A s 44 ‘

y =" y iy inot r + n . bh = n+ r ‘

+ . ¥ : ‘ + cod - r’* | ‘ : ‘ 4 te @

*i-* - + ; > 7 ; > ; - >

1 c r ~ iti er taisec ecequa » ¥ te C

' ‘¢ > > ,Y = ré ; : ‘ y — ‘

[ ice ia lé€ . waltian. i itw | ie rad rt i

, @ +> ref . n y

| . i i J ’ 4 i I ; rti lL.

‘

»'

aad

~~’

. + ha scr wit ¥ wl * " i , wer

“ : , . "

} iper r 1 . 4G- : 4 Ss Ad , <

e :

’ ei . =a . the ry t ei , + st A ew r tal

‘ : i ; j hat ne hac t ‘ Ame inte ta t

a e : >

. Let a t at - rew . Dp? i J witt rae tr t

: > 7 v *

. wi t ersta if t t Pierre f ly

; . e j rhe et) » > > he, A rew P j > rhe r >

. . ‘

,} ©, ; s ; ‘ 4G at i a 4. Cie t \

. . . 2

- » 5 € ratr , ix A a , ti ‘ « Oe sd

ixn J). #? ingly, the Ts i f that Andres

T . . " wit , ré ’ ‘

i "vw @Ve a6

4 } 9 ,

SS 2 ee »? ° ° ’ »“* s

. ’ ‘ , £9 ) > > > .

>. 5 a * Ff ’ ’ 7

et t t xi ‘ sere té

Ld , > t 1¢ ' t FF - + ta » + . t .ett ]

| - . .

rhe ent? * find: and i j are

ent wit t t rt wi na revit t

‘

*-F juve eT is “_wWwee ew? ° a ie 4 ’ 4 alia Oudesie

‘ : . © t Rf ‘ rt

a ~~. | ‘4 ; ; red } O« war , .

. ‘ | ’ : e.

“2 2 1e.0uee Oe? S Fee ’ . aa 4 eae * La

a - . >

tj eeeee’l . . ‘ ; VOT, ; ~ :

‘ , ‘ . 1 ‘ -* ‘

” f > es ti si) : \ ™ ' >> 7 >

c : . ’ - ' , -

ew t the t Ail ii : y i i re

t pl rea f th i tr ti j ling the ¢ y

t t ne i nave ¢t icté Lt Oo er | y the pasi

f inte es © heir the nurcerer esca ir r incti with @

faiiure t eri tively Withcr aw fr tr Cra . Petiti at «4

" ” , 7 - ° ‘

n. 10. The Te h Cis it did not ignore,” but fully anasyzec

. "

ar rejecte this sssibility, 802 F.2cd at i¢/sm 4, concludir

Ld ¥ ’ ‘ r ? > >

that the lear requirement of i tructi l2 that @ party &

‘ ; , ; — ,

act with tf tal state f jUiré Or tn cc ission ct @

’

| as

v,Tee

nas

the rime ¢t e a! t negate the £ ibility that th ury

, have nvicted Andrew without ai making the requisite

fi ing that ? intended e murders.". Id. at 1274.

64 The Tenth Circuit re ynized Cabana's holding, 106 » Ce ot

6% 97, that @ ceati entence by rest up @ guilty verdict

which nec itat @ftaiancang ¢ intent, Or upon appropriat

Fact a4 fi 4 macs ~y a tate trial udae xc appt ~L ate ‘ Ete

t Ped at ldide ] Andrew.s' case, Ut . Statute ar yur

j tior nece itated a finding f Enotvad-typ* intent, anc,

\ will be hown, ADLEGse te ta? pr é irt ace appr riat

f fi i ‘ intent.

‘

ai 4

i ¢

ate

“vu

ae=*

»eu

tra

, i}

very

‘ ’

t oY which aiiow ch £3 ing t be by state

liat rt ba ; ut the re rad), and @ a matter

ity. It wa in this context that 7ijso0 was remanec for

furt gc pr ings.

‘ » Tisep doe t Suggest a nee for remanding a

> - r r ° ' } Ff

: for determinat! of a defendant's ulpability where a

Jefencant, like Andrews, was tried and his jury was nstructed

. > , ‘ intenti " ¥ kr ir ki ; e ed lay the

at ry f intenti l of wing lling as required Dy

state's first degree mur r tatute, ar where the state c rt

have already f i that the evidence in the re }) estabilist

t pré é t this higher ental state.°'

Petitioner, tng 1 very e. ti reacing y

‘ , , ‘ ; rs ret ; > Anars«

. > bg ™ 7s *% ° = . — . | aa ~~ e a

y . r* aa ‘ 75 tre ,

ss y a ’ |. ~eevewe lt 4 2 iets = . ’ etre .

. id

ta e yed by the Ari » Supre Court i Tisoo,

retiti at 18, and that 7Tasop thu reguirt¢ case vb¢

rena ‘ t the tat irt for a recet ina ni ievel

lpability for t e murders under ti ighth A iment.

ti r ‘ t 1 ther portior ££ tnat anc ther

t re C rt inior i hi casé taining additional

f t } f } f intent: al . 3 wing kajalli . The State

¥, 60GC ees inior wit a retere t the c pani a

‘ > > t ’ ; } > , 7 : ¥ he

- weeks eh eeeaes & Fee - ta i? ,» where ti rea i

e > ’ ’ »

i reterreé t t r facts, reiere , aut rita a

¥ ‘ ‘ » * > : “ne ¥. > ’ bed > > ‘

ré if wha are pertains t @ we troiiing re. ebebe Ve

. : - sie

AodceuG, 5/4 P.2cd at as rhe ¢ rt stre that flacts,

explanations, and other matters Suppeevuedia.e ¢ those recounte

in Pieces are state ir tr mini 7 e emnpnhacics is the

at 4Giis i Stated i na Jpana ls as € pnasis s ti!

66 Petitioner mislead his Court when he implies that the Tent

" ; - ' ‘ .

Circuit did not have the benefit of hi Court’: ision i

Tisop when it decided this issue. Petition at 21. Whils

Andrews’ petition for rehearing was still pending, 7iseo wea

eciced. The Tenth Circuit ordered he partie to fais

lemental briers accre ing the p< ible effects of 24600-

| r ow t« ’ ¥ | ~ , .

r ita er‘s briet c taine cial S ilar t t e in hi

. > . ° 4 tot. »> at ’ _* :

itic for certiorari. Rehearing was subsequently denied.

. | 4

“+

» >

»**

: >>

- .

, ; a

. : s

" " ’

. = ire *

‘ > 4 ‘

" ‘ .

‘ ‘

we. @ »wee®

>?) ‘ ‘ :

“* *we «=

wee é =e sieve

‘ ’

ve mee > 5 FT >

‘ .

«2 seve _- **

‘ . “T

‘

Vee ® see ee

» * ’

e ,

I ;

La ieee eel .

‘ - A

;

Tr ;

, ;

fr. ; >

; : _*

. ewes

Ow ‘ ’ i >

e¢ ‘ :

7 "

’ &s«

x“

«*

“e

a *

; >

‘ y

if pant

e > ant ‘

. 4

‘ * , =

‘ ‘ ‘

- * : .

‘

;

ré

‘

hoe

_ ’

‘ a

“nA ant

‘ a ~s

¥ +,

La 4

ea i

’ i>

. ‘ tl

+ +>

7.) 2.

‘

‘ ‘

, * ,

| =: ‘

: ,

, On

, ’

eek » *

' ’

‘ |

‘ 3 t

‘

;

‘

wit

‘¢

’ ’

res

‘

sau®

‘

’

‘

Las

’

5] ‘

‘ :

;

n "

».“

”

“Ss

“

: ‘

f the ;

| ‘ !

‘ *?>

as ‘

m1 4AY

> "

4 | ‘

s ‘

‘ y

' AOWCT

2 ' ‘

‘

7 6

>? ‘

” ~

; ‘

> . .

‘ ,

’

. cf

‘

a4 y

*} ;

; ,

rat

a .

, .

‘

ré ; ‘

‘ , ’

4 ‘

: ‘

Tcw |

’ -— .

s a

’ ‘

wilt ‘ ao is

' in?*- 4

t ‘ j ‘

‘ ‘ rt

+ n "

ie col

‘

‘ ‘

. "

‘

t iw

' : }

we »*

‘ —

» ¢ .

} i i

.* eh ot

» >

view

+ the

‘ ;

‘ iG

‘ r

oF [

, .

> , ua ‘

+> in é ‘ ,

‘

; ‘ si

j [ —t Laws.

Lore r ror

s ’ *

an . iia

e*¢

> -&*

, ‘ ,

i : i

7 7 *

““ °

aes, .* °

Ff .

pt , +e ' i

wiiiidil

e he r " er

the victikl

, pat

‘

‘ -

t 7

‘ ‘ ’

. + > -

‘

;

‘

té

;

‘

;

‘

»*

7 7

; ;

. ‘

thei

, *

- u

* + ‘

> ‘

we’

> .

—

‘

)

~ 4

7) 2

+ rw) bas

‘ tal

} ~~ «

bs <— «

‘ x «a

m :

~< ete

3 ‘

‘ 4

4 .

¥ U

. :

® he

») "

be ° e

+4 ’ . °

* ‘

4 &

~~»

“**

=x*

, 7

"eu

e > - 2 > , aT * >

j j i ** SURES. a app. ise | tri

t f waiver. Clai t be pré . Jirect appeal

eas petitioner are preclu t raising i ( ir

t ti pt ‘ s ; = i if Ua I : i nav De

t Lreé t appe ai Ina t it WwW é wi aay¥

i } ; lé r . > reexa j ‘ > ye i ti tah’

é j ,¢ t ft tne tecerai a 2 anc pre jice, fundame tai

j ti ex pti ° Roo bios. Vve.-Cook « P.?d 225 Utat

198/); BoccrewS Va _POcrase P.2d at 819-20. The waiver ruls

ai Dar equ ; t ict titi wha rai i

. } 4 i nave OL t i € r lier | titi . tah’

i a4 t ft t : I t wt t £ i @, t eo UAVs

° 4 \ . : ieee eve - =’ S ear t e ° Ce N e

+ », 29, iF A x I

4 } IR24 t

. , *¥ Oeew.ka_Cwune * . 47 44 . 7/ * &uges

> 4 ‘ 4 ) ’ ° y+ hy ‘ ?

ta.eauveur * ewe 4 i . , @ eevbeeeueta_elideer *

. é ly , petit: pr ‘ r fauited thé laim f

: z habea r review. t ne attempte« esta i

r i ne nave .

; te j Pol -Bee SURES. ere failure tc el

t I ize the factual . a al ba for a ial or ¢t rais¢

sn i pite ré izi j é t titute cause, at t

abil } tnat ¢t , wa ! i tnat it a€ @i basi wa

: rea r @vaid 4 t i I | 4ai = A@ariy

Li Lé t U ne wa Aitigati it the tate irt .

It ha bee "per Lati - F the vari rt a wa leariliy

foreseeable. Suitb_v._Mucca@y, 106 S. Ct. 2661, 2067 (1966).

| Pr Gray_v._bLucas, 677 F.2d 1086, 1104-0 th Cir. 1982),

cext- denied. 461 U.S. 910 (1983); Dobard_Va. 435 So.2

. —T

iva

| as

Ts _¥ . Cra "

wee elite ee kat aGee &

“sae, : ¥~w

. “ewe =

Sis, P

" ; ‘ ‘

j sJiue*® ia

;

> > ‘

. ‘

- a

o bed .

ri ,

‘ . ‘ +

¢ . ier eats ' .

. > - ‘

3 a* > >

T aa

L } - jria

t he re ateciy

Par i*

—_+*

Petiti ’ ; Lx

r nmreser

-Ge hed +

. > * Treah?

ret ty + >

+e >

‘

ae “*

‘

“

er +

> ; ‘

I< ps

s 2

‘ +

wise %

4 |

a .

*?} or

A‘

jae *

Dr ‘ >

i ‘iat

. ‘

ad p |

‘ ‘

We " ’

. i P

rs ;

iea ¢t I

Ga pr

r¢

| t de

. . '

iit.

: zee CLy

t uncer

c it al i

> Tr

y i vi

enu late

}

; ‘

‘

> »*

a =

‘ *>

‘

ie*

tnd

Psy

@u—2e

’ .

ver

vw.

act a

any

wit

> ait

“

IX ¢

- esa

je at

} nae

‘ }

i ,

faa

wee

Lae)

’

‘

’

;

’

» *

" >

‘

+> . .

" . }

the it

: ‘ ‘

‘ ‘

Ae ‘

A ; ‘

‘

> ’

‘ .

4 ,4

‘ +

““eee ev

; ;

. .

‘ ;

> ,

a ‘

’ > }

4 | |

- >

‘ ’ Aa

rime

‘

Ve °F

a ;

‘ .

“~* ‘

~* |

wi .

eT ‘

;

‘

rm?

‘ .

—

’

‘

)

‘

;

a |

‘

‘ ‘

©:

~« he

/ J

< s

‘ a]

“ .

oo ee

=“

;

wee eve

4 " _

z _ i)

~ ‘ a

«<

‘

4 ~

weve

Ps +

a ~ i >

‘ ‘ ‘

nae

exe

Se Oke &

; .

e «Oe . *

. --

> oe

Dke : :

2 - .

. ‘ ‘

‘ “wee

*x«t. a

‘ ,

> , ,

. a

r*af ,

-—- 24 v .

r r

| A} iy

re ‘ for

i i

. he

seeeu

a 40 ay P ;

sue

;

.‘ «a

ne > 4

Juct 4242

’ +? .

+ ‘ P ve

, thor -

M ‘ .

ré ‘ ‘ t

made > i. ,

i ;

+ 4 ¥ i y

‘ rt ~ I

}

. .

‘ ‘ ¥ tatu ,

‘ *> . ’ ‘

A .

‘ ; ‘

_ &.e@ee eeu ee ve

7 . . | I

a. +? ‘ r

, ‘

i | -

‘ ‘

‘

‘ e+

; i

5046 at «

: »Re . *

‘ , wee b*

eur , - «4 c

4 )

. | }

er? ’

i «* a* , ad

ai?

wee eu .

4 ‘

a =

. , r

> a*

or ‘ .

i |

; ; A

. ‘ , ?

evi i 7

; ‘

rec siy ar t

>» '* , a ‘

nei a Aat

mie + ¥

nat asst ary re

i a , € icé e

e ha

aT >?

wyUdu

“wew

‘

Tt.

‘

;

“v

’

rr?

‘

}

: :

Lee

‘

’ >

> »

Tel

’ +>

y L ‘

;

» >

; :

’

>? ’ , , ra me ? r ’

ave : ‘ Ae 408 t wes «kee ew

| ’ > , . > >

& owe od . titi el ase, thi I Si jt

, 7 ¥ >

t rari ) i C«

, . , ; : . .

j 9 f IEW hs CAP11

a A : L7 ’ I N i . ELY PRE RV!

, _ . ont —

N ’ ’ I i | A 4 r nN FEI PAL

P ’ IT N 17 IN TH AM

y . ne , n> : | N

. . 4

7 2 ADEQUs LAW I

" . _ Os

ay N J l i A ]

ne , \ DP AY ,

‘ cae ad ‘

‘ . \ > have ¢} rt review w . r 4

>* >» [ : ita ‘ , } : | > he

( rt, | t I at P } | it | f

. ‘ t t t ‘ « a r ce : , oar

tr f f t wf thi ntry. He . thi

* ¢ : tj ‘ rrent re ire > thi

et ha ent ist for i iti ¢ +) ear : slty, ti

t i rteent ; ‘ furt BS et ire that } ta

ent er be per ia ey i rea boi } t that t

t ' it r tr 2 i 1 | twelig! the tort Lity

r tne it ating if ta f , a t t ft jeath pe ty ]

‘ rié 3 ippr riat s t? it ta . V@rti at

‘ : ,

‘ af i Lor erai rea

. . a . , Jue Inf } : ‘ .

EAcELe petiti er pr f raid i att t i LOL

YF mm 4

fecerai habe rt review beca ’ te hi Lai t tr

cc -ialags ‘ aif ecr n } a it 40-048 -OWO_EaSS 2

the state t either tate iaw round ra & matter f

. “| Z

federal constituti 31 law). The stancar was sought by a Mr.

"s : . ; \ i A | +

" , 1 a inrelate ase and never by Mr. Andrews. See State

, * thi fi i . Id. at ‘ at ‘ . ‘ , >

‘ ' scl the Fr wer tué ti w +> A , ”

} ] be final,°+ was neverthele entitle to tl

[ t t ve ‘ erit I t . ‘ t i ; t I , ;

. . rt te porns 74 eae at A w . t is it .

. > > >> " > ‘ ‘ ‘ ; : : >

t tr e given. Che e trial tr ipt at 4271, 4304

ti {1 t? brief e t apy e tl mS r ha

A e. Ss t a 6t ard t reguiri t tat *t prov

é 4 a aD Oot ctr at [ i ting fact rr whi t

: int rai j the sente ing pr ." See I nt I

e.t y° a eC [ el a ~@a > p [ecw | a

} attached as Apy fix L). ] , t rt t ry , A re

: > tr i if r tf I t pt tf ti exists

in a ravati I Lt 7aCi i ri wit the

’ : re rt rtit ‘ ’ , t? ry > re 3 3 . >>

i iti r tne Je ati ty ariter rati : iti ,

ra ti it ta : la racing | t Di

irect appeal y a é } al r ect the narrower

[ “ na : } AY rew 4 ‘

f¢ int frame t i ie f br i Point All, t é

t : int ] I Tei | t tir ty } j t et, At ta

re tl! the nar wer i . Mor er, they faiic t

for f t i in t ir petiti r rehearir t

. it t +e ‘ : t . | [ ;

i wn, Ww t rt rrt i tand tiliz } Andrew

for freé wl : i ; if ta

pr f ,aust ti rt t t, ar not t

t A t é ; tnat it was. But 1 ie:

r t i at IOuUnt ta 2 , ir Ancrew a

r t for . f rew ve Morris, t? rt

ti stely l > + ‘ " it l i > r A =

t prev ic } t w “7 : is f * @ "cer

sa sai t ha be« : arely { ( as later rr

r od.” € P.a at ¢ .

J rt did not exami! whether Andrew t ti W i-ty

te ing tandar i his first tat 1a 3 ry petiti

ich wa filed a iec beror the w ) isi wa

r 1ere . However, i Stat petitior ' tnat he cid !

Paracraph l2(a 4 f that petition (attac! as Appendix B

claimed tnat there were "gQ standard 3 idance |t whi

sentencing authoritie are to balance . « « jgravating ar

mitigating factors . » or by which they are to determir

ether a4 f{ u r saoravating or mitigating factor has be

established tjhe State was reguirec t< eet no burde f

proor as t f t in the sentencing hearing, other than a

general bur f ersuading the jury tnat the death penaity wa

appropriate’.* There is fr reference ¢t 1 reasonable doubt

andard and Andrew ever asserted the need for uch a star!

yncer the federal constitution.

81 "Final" meaning “where the judgment of convicti wa

r jered, the availat Aity rf apt ai exna ted, ar 7 the t T

petiti for certior 1 it ti nitea tat Supreme C t é

‘ i" betoré« he new rule was an inced. Linkletter v

Walker, 381 ~S. 618, 622, ne S 1 9¢ ,

-4

-«

——

tut i requit . a€ i J A rew reserve

> . ’

i ibie f erai review wa whether t ta preme Court

ai t e him tne ret active benetrtit t the state iaw

’ > qa 7 . *i- +

WeO¢ ; urd ‘ w violate fe ral onstituti a

. > > + e< > ; a4

ie. l right < eguai prot a ) pr °

I r Sé ea €s ra ha r eorir ’

i i a rai a rpu iti

> be ne . ¥ ¥ _

att ‘ : ix , A rew rely reiteratec his cial

‘ > _— ¥ , . “ ene

‘ 34 ud 2 at at > s 3 - € s

¥ 2 | > ?

autt riaties ré t € ,Gf ati } LtiaGetifl factor -

by whicn ti a t jetermir = ther 2 a icuiar ravati

. itagata f tor hee establi E that ¢t

+ > a > > ww! .

‘ tria rt t tar rt i a .

Ay i Lain t S ¥ faiiur r tl t en rt

. the retr ‘ ‘ , rit t the new tandar jer ‘

. _ ’ ‘

fe al prot ti 5) ‘ : ‘ rights. see

t 1ai t rtiorari i a ropriate w the f iti now

oF y petiti r i trary ¢t that w was @ rte in ¢t

. ‘ , ‘ :

elow. Youaki Ve MilLier, 424 U.S. 231, 234 l9 ;

, 2 af o

t t \ 1. is 4 . . 4, = 4 . ? iz ;

’ ’

, le + 4 a 4¢ -

4 t Ve AU = ’ . . SU, 0d 4 . Certi ari i a.

. - ’ , ; »

riate ié - the 23eC1S)1 low iS bDasec upon a

. cyY¥ is 7+ “se La. eeu Ste Wekee ei?

. | > ‘ er? ‘ One oe ; he

=<“ & = . «wei et i Oi ees * - es ° 4 ° se tne Wo

isi “ jround lely in state law ld be adequat«

. a + } 5 + \ .

rea for cenying 10rari, iet ai e the fact ti t the

pr t petiti r ftalit t raise the i i ni , case.

4 y ’ , > 5 > °

» I, <« / r 4 I [ , Orror . sacw i risi ‘

> > ‘ + > - ¥

r ] itut efect are t lzabi¢ n federal

' + .

ha : ry r v. Burke, 334 oSe » 32 194 ; Engle

i J

a , ’ .

wR. a , 4 Be 2 » id >» 4 19E2Z); arclay v. Florida, 4

-S. 939, 9 -56 19 ; Wainright v. G , 464 U.S. 8, BE

‘ > oe - 7 4 — 7 ‘

133s ; Pulley v. Harris, 4 U.S. slg 42°54 1y64).

its decisional law

er to a

és

| |

oon

;

er?

retroactively raises no federal question per Se, Nor doe: its

decision to extend retroactive application only to cases pencin

on direct appeal and not to cases which were already final.

Rather, “[tlhe federal constitution has no voice upon the

subject"® and this Court has left the states to develop their ow!

rules on retroactivity. Great N.R. Co. v. Sunburst Oil and Ref.

C 9

’

Supreme Court on direct appeal found that the

instructions given in Andrews’ case did provice a

stancard. The jury was adequately advised that the burden was on

e State to show tnat the totality of the evidence of

aceravating circumstances outweighs the totality of mitigating

circumstances because the instructions placed the burden on the

; that the death nalty was appropriate (Sent.

yuired the jury to “weigh” the

-69-

_ -

“

Yeu

‘

+ ;j a

~4 ‘

- -?

‘

We 4

> , . a . . y "

‘ | s s . ; . .

> > 7 > ¥ > . , . a 4

ext A rew now pré t rti

+ > A ¥ =

. . . ’ SOULS oe taecvsewsu’ ‘

* 3 r

j & x 3 why Al rew ‘ t

. . Ens > . ’ . = ‘ ‘

A OF LOL ; 21 :

y e » . » »@

os ‘ Li . ¥ iy iI

+> ref e he ta ‘ —_

> Tel. ‘ . ‘ a y .

: : Ov Vie

r I t . ° ° } .

SEG Beek Ceabsss tev veruv’ Pee A

' re . .

xs” a oa ° ’ -

> P, ’ ’ » > >

j ’ : . ~ I j

+ , , . ‘

: : : : ; ]

t a al I jit a ta aw,

‘ + £ ’ >

3 o 4 a ,

> =" r ’ ‘ " +

. . “_s* | ss a

. .¥ . ‘ > ‘ ) A ag

“~e & @s | > | >) . a - . . « ; ‘ :

u ‘ra ’ 7e + ‘a ~* amr

Jtiayer + o wee &€ 9 4 i .

’

— torr > ‘ " " ‘ 7

> rA Ar ' y

ar l Ancr ey a wa nar

. ‘ y , + h¢ > , 7 ~

-* aves? s shay =) | ‘ 3 ; [ *

r } rrom tne pr ir ai sefauit.

*> . ‘ ‘ nA or

; iV . a ve La -e' a , VI IT ada

he «> 4 . > ho » ;

, X i U S iC tC we reacnec.

’

[

‘

-«

suf

‘

Lia

*a*

‘ a

y é

, >

~~ s

- 46

“+

a <

now

tin

‘ ¢

‘ \<

nen

a §

err

a a

‘

ré

’

;

’

ati

ain

lad

‘

“

‘

rat

nte

meé

giv

the ¢

* 4

ity ov

outw

ircun

pe u

revie

> fear

sé > >

fé

‘

eweuewr

ie ke aus

“ y)

4 .

m4 |

uw 4

2 ‘ «

be 4

he -

3 =]

+ “4

4 Gd %

‘

; ”

wv) 2

-4 a

4 ~4

. .

} ae Ld

‘ ©

c =)

" . .

4 ont

zs £

wit

5 oO

row

“7

+ he

”

“— =

)

~~ et

)

see

s ‘

;

wea

o*¢ ‘

- >

: re

. "

> 3. 2 a el

; , -4

re ire .

‘

, ,

’ >

if )

ti exa }

, " —_

»> , >

; iG

‘ ‘ ts i

eevee

t oo

a\ ;

: ;

" *>

. : Liiat

’ —_ >

. teria

evi

¥ ° '- ~ * .

> he three

pel ; t col

> > > a ’

oo < .

“# Aart. J

‘ > "

tl r pena

wn r sear y

. r+ :

; pai I ai

Ltd it ; ‘

’ ‘ .

mee

’ ’ .

> +>)

> .

> ’ >»?

> ’

‘ ‘

" »> .

‘ “ss 2 2 ;

. i

‘

; ‘

‘ ’ ,

‘ i

s i i

> " >

‘ ‘ .

i ~*

¢ ‘ ‘

» I

‘ >

t ~

owe

‘

+ » rt.

‘ eh ©

? ‘

> "

’ >

*-,

‘

’

’ >

;

> ‘

‘

’ * 4

7 ~ 4

nr "

+ €

14°

ta ‘

. .

‘

. 7

‘

7 ’

» *

;

‘

;

¥ +

> > " ; wt ‘

+ . r ine t | iGa , oe -* . .

. : if . . rt ; ‘ ¥

' ravati ta rs. e law provid rtunaty f0r

™ i " hs

‘ . > ‘ ‘ ’ view t st rié 34 aiway

; j v 4 ‘

m 4 ‘ ‘ r er _ i¢ tr tne

’ . . >

_ . ir t} me ifi ast eve where | iga j

| "T ,

. . ’ ; ‘ . . j ‘ . ‘

| t r J - j a a | ; i i . , ‘ ‘

» > " 7 ‘ me ‘ >? ? rne

° = ‘ r ‘ r | } at

: ’ .

> > , > ;

t t wei , ‘ ia . : &aueur ,

y ™ 9 > > ec > -

‘ 7 > ’ ‘

. * . . _ > > . -4 »~ + .

’ =

. , . ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘

Lt _ * > > + _

‘ " ‘ y ‘

> > p

" > > bad ‘ e,

. , ré ‘

" , } i [

. ‘ ‘ " ‘

. . ‘ . i . : , | M Y«

‘ rf? ’

. *? ° , ae avenwwl

—“_- *-* ** “?

. ‘ “

. : " . ’ 7

. - 3 } r

. > > °

Bf 1984)92; Baccis_¥.-Pudliex- 692 F.2d 1189, 1192, 1195

cir.), Gext- denied: 660 U.S. 1047 (1983). Other state and

ral jurisdictions are 4n accord. See Gray.¥e lucas 677 F.2d

, 1105-06 (Sth Cir.), e¢big Geoace 685 F.2d 139, GeEt-

ed, 461 U.S. 910 (1985); United .States.v.Mattosus. 73 M.J-

196 en banc) (acgravating and mitigating factors need not

ighea under any Durden of proof); Regple.va-feaceseds 25

34 142, 158 Cal. Rptr. 281, 599 P.24 587, 610 (1979)

nable doubt standard not requiree a penalty phase for

hing acgravatir ar itigating factors); State_v¥aUVatar oY?

48, 56-57 (Ariz.), Ceth- Geosee 449 U.S. 938 (1980); Qtbats

ritcbett, 621 oW.2d 127, 141 TX - 1981): Sostoa-Vae

2Deeaiabar I? . 20 JUV, Fssrmse (RY. L960) ; JSCsbeOoVa

Se ? 24 1242, 1256-57 (Miss. 1976); State Yea esmeate,

Wed ) , B92-9 Neb.), G@EL- Gebs4tur 434 U.S. 878 (19 :

In Ford, the Eleventh Circuit Was fully aware ot Utah's Wood

and soundly rejecteco it stating:

Third, Ford's argument under Ipn_rce_Wsogvoap

»riously confuses proof €§ facts and the weighir

ot fact in sentencing. While the ex: tence “i an

accravating or mitigating circumstance is a fact

ysceptible to proof uncer a reasonable doubt or

preponderance stancare [citations omittec], the

relative weight is not- The process o°* weighin

circumstances is 4 matte’ for judge ana jury, ard

unlike facts, is not Su ceptible to p.oot by eithe:

party. Petitio er's contrary suggestion is bas

on a misunderstanding of the weighing process, tne

statute and the guicing and channeling functior

Jdentafied in Proffitt_vse_Flocice {citation

omitted). Indeed, it appears no case hats appli

lo_ce_wisnsuape 2 the manner Ford urges. The North

Carolina and Utah cases cited by him which imposec

a reasonable doubt standard in this situation

turned on construction of state statutes ratner

han the due process rationale ot Jo_c¢e.Wsogdar-

See State_vyadob0ee0- 257 S.E.2d at 617, and State

¥._bo00s {sic) [catataon omitteci.

Ford's alternate argument . + + 45 that the

Florida capitai sentencing proceeding involves new

findings of fact significantly affecting punishment

to which the full panoply of due process rights

should be extended, including the requirement tnat

the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors.

Again petitioner confuses proof of fects with the

weighing process undertaken by the sentencing jury

and judge. Because the latter proces is not a

fact susceptible of proof under any standard, we

reject this contention.

Id. (Emphasis is the court's).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.