# Opposition Brief — William Andrews v. Kenneth Shulsen, Warden > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_1443%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1988 - **Citation:** 485 U.S. 919 ## Text 2) lanl ba TH , & ad or > L o ft LN vv A A Piva cr —~ 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 / .- oI 2 a wu x 2 Co oL | oe ~ & , os rs co cr © @ P= — 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 4 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 63 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 ‘** , 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 C » wre 4 re) 4 we ‘ss ~ Jt » J ] Der anel AA nict r € Meceart P , -aneaw =* 200€L_AdoinsASstcator_of Massacbusetts_yv. Feeney, sa >¢ IC Pe 7o.97 % + 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’ a) - &e ~ IN 34 U.S. 26 U e 597 F 4 U.S. oSe- 1 ( = ul ‘ i 6 nN , IU ee ; «4G } * - a ; cL Vat . . eee 2A « 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 "+ , . . a -* ede 12 . 5 Me & 2 4 r 2661 g FP > ~ a & WwW @ + «.% (Utah e SSct 86-6303, ~ Te) Ww ee ai Q 982 ivd J - ’ eee ™ > ece r& eee 03) 8 6 ¢ ic 4 oA a ee es . Nh enr + ui *-* . . *-* c+ ' ** uw rida ae | ~ on o de 7, 1 eee eee eee *eee eee eeee eeee eese eeee vy 399 y : lees eeee eee sees eeese ) i? af eee 82 ( 9), > = ~ wo I+ eeee » be eee eee? 9 G **e Qo” 2) ** ** ee *-* ** ** ** ** ** | *- . ** ** *-* ** © *-* ee *-* *-* *-* ** ** *-* ** *-* *-* *-* 7 “7s *- ~ N WwW wi & uw uw a 9, fee) oO wi ~~ © © @ qd 761 (1981), Stéate_vea_Tayiors 304 N. ° 2 rt ©o £1213 (1983) ccccccceccccecsccccccccce SF feck. deuied, 463 U. mon ° nt | & Se) . rr tt) . ¥ to ~ ~ * @ ar fa c yy ~ r m a wr £ r ey vr r _¥a Woods 648 P. denied, 9 U.S. 988 (1982) ccccccccecccccccccsccesecssccsecesseceses a 9 ° . oe .A Ge: 3 ~¥e2_-VYOsbeg_ef3 Ww 2 eSe 55 U.S.LeW. 4942 (1987) cecccrccccces i © co - * r [ae ’ 73 U.S. 911 (1985) cccccccccccsecscscceee 15 tw ~ rj . NM L © @ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . oO Pa) 1u54 (5th Cir. 1° Togowpsen_va_bypaugh, 8 + Thewpsen_v._Lynaugb_I1, 821 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1987)........ 45 co o 2676 (A987) cccccccceesccoccocose | isQd_va_Scizona, 107 S.C ae N @ ' css wo - uw 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 . 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 ° > cr cr té L ail cr co Ww vo. me £ end! try a mm foal N ~ rr? CY ba rs) 4 . ’ 4 hy 4 a «4 : he wa > £ 4 . ‘ ao + 4 + es ‘ 4 4 4 ‘ . ‘ “1 be = 4 +4 : i + : oe + o4 } Ms ~ 4 rw) . wa +4 J ”) mm = 7S) ~ . ‘ ‘ rw ‘ 4 3 Y ; ‘ . + u r he ! 5 sr : t u U s ha = AQ 9 wv) : yD 44 a] AQ ~ ‘ ‘ rw ms ‘ bas U ba ro] rw £ > : + Lane " 3 4 : : " ‘7. . . ss | s° , 2. . ; " 4 4 7 be ‘ 4 - 5 4 1 ‘ he ‘ wa ‘ ‘ . ‘ -} +? a ‘ 3 . s ‘ 4 he - a Cc 4 " QO. 1 W”) 4 U 4 @) c 4 5) - ry 4 + 4 . 0 4 J 4 ha \) ) £ = 4 t ~~ i) ~ ae 4 ) po - 4 4 L be re) : . Ma ) | 4 + ~ 4 c 3 7) J +4 2 ir Q ‘ ‘ ) = @ oy 4 4 be 4 o ve 8 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 ) « 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 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 4 } ‘ 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). cr er ‘ r i wa > 7 4 . 7 reé w er Ww ps n ~j ct +o Al + ~~ > 4 os Ki ’ at sS¢ + L e . “a : ‘ a i+ a v4 rate r ew ra ’ Ge, 20herLr i r r i st . ©eviag } + ny . ‘ ~ +} « + aah ?>o UO ~ Cc ‘'y © - ~— faa) oo w @ a] m v r Aad i ‘ 2 a rac . = tr Vi 2a ¥ ’ ' ° . > 4 a . ~ + ae | 4 ‘ ‘ y wOeic A 4 + ‘ 4 L i + ‘ , + ’ ~€ > J irizea ve ; > ‘ ; ‘ > L ca L ‘ °r a" ; €; , ° Vee “iix = ft ¢ co ons ere es, pr st r } ur nh Jiv é ° a aT Licat ¢ ilty avate ‘ ’ agg rPAice rcdict he fe } Cc Se é ‘ e ¢ + i C wy lrtwa say a .2 naw ho , tne voice a eh UrsS O. AMI 4Qy a . > \ - e ‘ »e@e he . rt é “i & I1gG@g , r Cer = > at ria ria e777 2/4 rar Psy . 4 ‘ " £ , > Tb at +} Ge De => ea rr? P= be “4 4 + } i" ‘ . _ L / ; > b r Ped rt r ir eer eit ; avr'a ~ at ~~ rr weaUti sGube ’ o i @ ba an eT «4 Lan ~ ro) rw) oO ha 5 | sue r > ‘ week eae e. =U «ve - ase ee aw +4 +4 “i ~ 4 42 4 ”" ia £ t #~ OD hs bas ) ) +e 4 Ae is + 5 7 = ‘ —. E { j a ed ~ 0 M4 ‘ rs ) - ~ort f + ) ‘ -4 4 ~ “aT 4 4 > ‘ — + 4 + J 1) 4 Z OV om os “4 aidy ra a . ‘ wus * 4a -88U_% faa > oe o cr ct cr tr co cr cr cr » anal a] and + \ ~ co co an] w cr PO c? oe ons - a co i Ss fad Ps mh ad re . Cc} . Te _Li_aniitaw fad rr . provide 2 4 to the c as eg WNC > ’ idDYy 1 ee > the + AT AC enci y 7 ~~“ & + lacki ch a2 rict + jati Tenth -o ne 22, ain videntiary 2d 1228, Supporting factual 1233-34 3 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, ‘ > ” >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 ~ ~~ . 9 ° wo Cc +4 3 m La | & , _ ¢ o ' o & ~ 5] Vv 7 a 7am > t t | ~ ; a 3 w& mere ~ C 4 % oe 3 AD + ~ 9 om ™ . = o & 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 n - 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 ad o& ms ~ Cc r + the ,de Nn A reveaiec -n - he of he never ould have" questior fers Andre of eviden rma ti { i @ an TT ict 2g } , r + ‘ ; ‘ he to nr pr an C ’ ai ur “y i + +o leg pec Fe eo Ff da + - t n of Wilda ne - N | co co lana pe + _ - 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] 2 re Vener a oF 7o) ad } Al e — Do Ww D «4 " -*c Ww) 4 ) er. "™ o) +? 2; 4 + he —_ > 4 ‘ 49 4 Yr 4 Let ~ @ ~~ & 1c > a Vd v c > w 4 a4 re el +s? re] J iy + | he a ye mae i o* > et be u ac et cmN ; v E a Ww > . vw ~ ce oe wv - 1 - + w ™ @ ~ i) “4 4 4 ) “4 Le) i 4-4 yc he ha ee eee be +4 -? wT ac a bh “a O mu UO 4d on - ~ » 0 bi es 5 O x oY eae DD Ww w+ of) @ #” - 7) 4 - v ba - =) ’ oo 4 ow = oo : us L 4 be be ) re) ‘ 3 ' ba ; . . 3 ‘ - “4 + oe jury of 7S) Zing eri ~ + he ba J ba. ) i Ad ‘ re . re 7) ‘ o ‘ } +4 ! f 2 { o4 7 . 4 ‘ oul “4 a4 > + ’ 4 - 0 ) 4 > £ x 4 . - = ‘ u r 4 -4 + ae] J ~ - a4 i - - 4 a] QD - c r — 4 ‘ be o 4 + le ) »" . y| + > ~ ba J = 4 7 4 4 Lo 4 . 4 4 . OQ. rs) be ~ vam) ~~ +4 nl oo re) ae J > ’ ' A a 2 ’ P t ave ew ee e , weve ba ~ 4 «4 , he W) o » A . | 4 . 71 . 4 aA To 4 : " r4 ‘ } ) ) > re ‘ ‘ . x } 7 _ 4 ‘ wt kh 4 * of > .) > cw 4c - oe 4a G Lal ) * we Oo ~ we = rw) _ ~ + 4 4 ba ~ 7) ed ort 4 st y+ 4 ‘ M Yu) -4 7 “F 7 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 | 4 he x 4 DO we °* ¢ ‘ 5 | . ‘ + t i ba . ; . »¢ . . &-- + wi G i . ‘ ‘ ba i7~t + , vy Ww 44 4 ‘ ba : > ; sc —T 4 ‘ ‘ t ‘ } - 44 4 m4 DSCte wtbe_ ect_ire ake rve e ~ wea 4 4 ha ba 4 ~ AQ ~ ba ) =] a 4 + . +4 a] | ba =) a 4 us - 4 + 4 ba 4 ba ha : 4 “ ba 1 ae rw) -vaee’ —_- 7" Atweudeat r 7 ee ee 8 iexe +4 rs) rw) et ~ P 4 @eexwear ~ its t ee " tna ven fai ta ‘ i tha Tit. jur r - , > 164 wewvitO @t Se mumericdadsa prt eis , — + 7 . ih al xe = > - w : , | | a , ‘ =. uM ++ vr n. sn). ee cr? * * é Petiti a | nr rtion + ir t : > , Serr - € é . > + U - ert “> z, se eeu a | Our gr mt c ' ~* I ne } ~ie > ae > & 4 s* t re ve x ’ x reé ee rf . r . r ~ i > * 4 + a 5] = = n+ iLa + L r i * 4 4 4 ws 4 Ly > > nm al . UY VV. is g ’ ? wy ity; , ¥ VU} ec ¢t ‘ > ne > , “xe. Up in “toa ; . ~- Cu a- the } ; K + r ’ ; + ; > ica . ‘ ws , s > ‘ 7 > , ; =i - ; > . . > > > t - . . + ‘ ' > ; > . =e eae * ; > ' = 4 . A a + wr) Ty € fone é é é . } t? re 2 2 SS S| ® er . Veen & 4 NS -« é 2 a = auc ‘ + ‘ , > + rFeiisga -ré ; re ucd s ‘ Or pein 42 ~ ” A ri expre red ¢ t Iw > " e : - Pe. Pos I? ‘ ney aga zat nu re iv «-_* ni + + A ‘ ; a > NIA + ‘ L , ati lil me r - itd xe -Sc 2 > re ‘ ti . x ‘ s r .r ai ‘ , 7 > +> . o 4a cc? = = , ‘ ‘ ; 4 + + . } o ex ~~ * _— u ‘ .”™ + +} - “7 lA + a n * ) . + } thn + r na 1 2 a cr ww » way + 4 r tt: 4 . | + > 7 ‘ y a+ } i a ’ y > error T ? LOTCS Ee JUE ‘=e Lawn’ r+ : rt, f that eer +} , LalM, ef + vi thei el perf ' - »/* ‘ t ¢ ne tis - i fi ave N eee > we Lai eq ¥ “ 4 + i r ¥ 4 4 4Ga ; ~ 4 > > 4 A 4 '« - ' + t or et > a =- > Ve lé a x > Ww) - ata regardi vw a 7 Uu ar to proffer «4 PS) ba 4 l 2_UWlisys ot =e § e Torr -/ a-eeuv > ma / v4 ve J a “| +\ it i 4 " La j ' io a] e~ f~ i 4 tr «.! J! J rT) Cy bl ' aun >a! 7 4 mi ZI a 4 a ! rr = 3 re sx | ited © lod , - 1 ery > + hs > i} . é ~ _* ’ 4 ° “= - aw « ‘7 > + - r =“ > 4 Ce 7 , -* = ' > +, : no + ‘ is . L + 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 . ‘ , art > = : E t ici : 4 ’ ‘ : ry eS: IOLiAC fF > | 4,14 . . . + he ry a 7 > + ’ “ icagoO, fa m ae + i \ aa +} uM > ,A ¢ > i va 7 “swe, > > wie - Aa ee ee eT woe . * Tne | . . > > ‘7 -« he i & : is tne na nit i nhita } rir : ri ] Wi » ¥ svcd i . > " , ’ La =vVve A aut , > he , “ 4 > r +i r ~¥ 4a ia. 4 ~¢ *? c » > | s ; s + + . ~ se . we r } ‘ v« rs ju et > ne == 4 ' + +* au , j re he os he re) aa eee weve wee wl v os a ne) bh a rw) . y , m Y 7) re —s © ZA re) re) “a a TT - + Claims deal c at Oe wes Oey rw) we a cr ee ee et ee + tioner 6, | t naoea ‘ ‘ ’ , , i if i we ‘ oF i 3 r ’ : + i gu —' " > > wiia ‘i ? " . é . a jua the } i i" is: > r MUSt tt Aicr Cispaltat , ctart + tOvd \ mir i »AVi r ew Ve = ie & ” aa vr st ‘ - i } ' ii , » ‘ > + lcai Ly , ing a §& ‘ Ws pena t an resu rhand nang tr @it I . - y OL + c “ws *& avicc not ¢t ped t . @ ’ 4 ai a , 1iec Oo more cr? cr cf me t+ ry cr re co Statistical patterns of disc one d mmr a] 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 + P § 24794 r : ‘ 4 > - imination ~ wx = i ¢i Cita rt ret 4 a4 fend r , . ¢ e} ~ > co co her + s © x ec rx , > a bs » > + s ; ~ feder te c edure Yr i! s, it the erw + UliLt. ,anat ¥ > ry ¢t wo! » t ‘ . ra t wi ‘ ; ‘ » I r +) wert > ¥ ror ft a fede § i have nme : , a > . ‘ a & > > + \ att ' a a 7 +> pia 64, ,* +f 6) co -_ Oo he +? th i ct he fa ta r ty > f > ‘ at Sil r I in a Ss i au ef h rn s ‘ [tr in sé id ? ‘ wa * j 4 . } ad udica abeas ase, st t, re s§ tre a. pe t : r rial 1769 I i = > ‘ iti tir wed f fi “whi a i Aut auit ‘ a ps eet } 4 iid ave he 1 > > ? ¥ Lea 4 > ti ne 4 + Va tw r + } J A = + re if s ry ei ‘ 7 of os @ ' re. i ‘ i s é pe wi L€ q een of er e& rr tir 19 tacte year ni ‘ lé t ‘ a ar e} ne ~ * > ' it f he we . * hin ni do wit aI me 7‘ ‘ ‘ “i= @e @ © aveenel ) . . ° 7 ~~4e4 24uvUle Os > ytner r tora er t 4 ‘ ; €) Pt a it a tee ' rr ‘ i > . -~ > ce Se pa ester er e > Ane A ‘ ’ _oF ; rf > he Ut + . . ’ > > . »**. . e, >t | an a) rr >» a Ce cr o me ao re yw 0 ial rn } ror re > Fr tri pet i 7; OL rat ir e ° ? ter nap zat r i op ' .y > ‘ V , fr i .t at ' € we A -~ A ra r if . . se A x r i- > r ; r . r c r ‘ he sit + Ve a y 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 7 oftere t a 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 eh wal > \ - , ‘ e r i > } \ r Ur [rt re me ? > t i tana h eo ec r *2 reé [ > a} Fr ’ a > ci we a Ca ; nm ¢ ae . in na " € ’ f uly ere , ; nat } ‘ 4 ea ‘ Petitione i Oi th) red, 4 } i. +> > * a é 4 ; - . a) > S > n r s 4 4 ‘ *~* ie his mu the show! ny any nal re anal Sriet r ,iTre t eal i attached a Ar : . - _ a) Ad : . s a a ap pe ian t . petiti f ” . 4 2 a , ‘ v ‘ > ~ ’ : ’ : bed Fr ns we.t ’ . 7 7 . £ . ‘ . a= : e* ‘ . " > > . . , ‘ . ‘ - -* >> . . a ¢ o 4 4 weit r ° &GAdsay a ha ~a ta.Ouwest ’ r la ha noulic ha 4 a wT (2) rw) ba 4-4 > he + ‘ ‘ ot 7 4 ‘ > > ; " . -' : . =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 - & ‘ .* “* ‘ 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 > 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 i er * rt : } = we ¢ 819 i a: re rr *- i) ¢ ‘ a” ' - ew ex So" éo — ‘ + ; ‘ . i + ; \ . 7 ’ o- » + + he + ~ a | » > + ‘ ‘ & — "der , 2 > e¢ > > ra > ; > s + a4 ter hi -Ce 6124 ‘ ‘ ‘ . — ’ > + ° ror . > — . ’ > ‘ Fed re a 2 he ; 4 ha ea > . 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 # ‘ ° x= ow @ r ‘ rv) Le) o4 > : + \ > : 7 . et + ‘ 4 s | 4 ‘ ‘ - + : . + ia = i > > -« 4 a A i ' ’ . > Po rh a ti ate + * 4 ~- «= > A ~ . ’ > . . Ja. ma ia a | c wll, - , ai C » 1 Su eu 4 ¥ ro reé + _* *r au > ‘ al . . + = = ‘ i +¢ + +> » & + ’ hé E [ 4 nm ¢ ¢ + Of » ©€aua a ‘ 1 r lve . ize Ge ia > . ’ + EA’ r+ ‘ ‘ be 4 é ’ ; . ™ --* > ~ &* 1 f irew vehi at Lt : ? | Cc + 5] i) ” @f ‘ ‘A ee ad 1 4 ~ + e anc ne aft ne . Le . ‘ , c > 5 . hel i 1 Pe y ‘ Ve rat > ror Li + co r* > eeu ‘ . > ‘ ‘ io ¢ + } > , | > &} ti * ’ } fa , * ee | f Ww er fal cr ~ wf wv -&« Ac ‘ ~ > + s 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 + = = . » © = = = = ne & r & 64 ‘ 7+ ms 79 7 ie Yack eee Be ee e > > a bd & te we 8 : 4 ~ > ’ . > > y ‘ ’ ‘ _— hr. Io ¢ ~ =: * . » > 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 =| 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 , . 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 ] ga | - . . 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 @ - ~ & © > - iv ~ 7 o - ° ry ~ et . ’ > " ~ | as . v,Tee os ® mn 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. ‘ . . 's , ai 4 i ¢ > t ate . re ix . , i} very ‘ ’ o = 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 . t it 3 ar ¢t . © rt @ Aiea tne an mi I 5 . 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 . ° 4 tot. »> at ’ _* : itic for certiorari. Rehearing was subsequently denied. . | 4 , 2 > s 7 > - ee > “+ » > > »** ** > 7 : >> - . , ; 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 * oe ; > ‘ y if pant e > ant ‘ . 4 ‘ * , = ‘ ‘ ‘ - * : . = me ‘ ‘ ev w a+ ce ; ; ré "4 i . ‘ i a at au hoe _ ’ ‘ a “nA ant ‘ a ~s ¥ +, La 4 | ea i ’ i> . ‘ tl + +> 7.) 2. .* ‘ ‘ ‘ , * , | =: ‘ : , , On , ’ eek » * : ' ’ ‘ | ‘ 3 t r ‘ > ; ‘ ey . v ce e* wit ‘¢ ar ’ ’ res w ~ a = t- ‘ sau® ‘ oe =e ’ ’ ~ x ‘ Las : ’ 5] ‘ ‘ : iA , ; n " ».“ +> ” “Ss “ >> : ‘ hs + 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 ‘ ‘ rt + n " ie col ‘ ‘ ‘ . " ‘ t iw ' : } we »* ‘ — » ¢ . } i i .* eh ot » > be > 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 ‘ ei ‘ ‘ - t 7 ‘ ‘ ’ . + > - re e er ‘ ; ‘ : . > >) ‘ té . . , ; > ** + oe > > 3 ‘ P| > > ; > > ‘ , »* > . a - , a e 7 7 =] 4 ; ; . ‘ thei , * as ce - u * + ‘ > r ee > ‘ we’ =" - a s > . — > ‘ k ‘ ? ct wi i ) . aa ~ 4 7) 2 t+ + rw) bas 4 ‘ tal } ~~ « bs - 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 A ; [ t t i t ial I [ ©trdaa rt . 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 se 4 PO fo 7 . + wr ' iva . ' eo c Pa LY | as Pa & Ts _¥ . Cra " wee elite ee kat aGee & & “sae, : ¥~w . “ewe = Sis, P " ; ‘ ‘ j sJiue*® ia = ; v) > > ‘ , . ‘ - a o bed . r 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 “* ‘ o wi “ * er + a > ; ‘ I i ‘iat . ‘ i 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 ta « a1 } 4 yr i -* ; ‘ > + ‘ ‘ s ra > »* a = ‘ *> r ‘ ie* wo tnd a ? Psy o ot ms ca ° rr cf @u—2e ee ’ . ver er vw. act a any wit > > ait “ IX ¢ 9 2 - esa je at . } nae ‘ } i , a a . t+ faa ~ in of wee cr oe w Lae) ct ee co ’ ‘ ’ ; ’ » * " > > ot ‘ +> . . s " . } the it : ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Ae ‘ A ; ‘ ‘ > ’ ‘ . . 4 4 ,4 ‘ + > o ““eee ev ; ; . . ‘ ; > > , a ‘ ’ > } 4 | | - > a4 ~ ‘ ’ Aa rime 4 ‘ Ve °F a ; ‘ . +> “~* ‘ ~* | wi . eT ‘ . > : >, 6 . > ; ; ‘ tw r rm? ‘ . + — or > ’ - ‘ + , " ‘ fw ? ri . ) ‘ , ; te a | > ‘ ‘ ‘ > er ry J ©: , Aa A - re ~« he / J weve Ps + a ~ i > ‘ ‘ ‘ . +4 nae exe oa Se Oke & eS . i+ ; . e «Oe . * . -- > oe Dke : : 2 - . " . ‘ ‘ ‘ “wee ~* *x«t. a ‘ , 4 tt > , , . a r*af , -—- 24 v . r r | A} iy re ‘ for i i . he seeeu a 40 ay P ; P g) . , sue . ; a? ve , * a *J .‘ «a ne > 4 Juct 4242 ’ +? . + ‘ P ve , thor - M ‘ . ré ‘ ‘ t 7 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 | 7. ; ; 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 ° . ys - re | o > ‘ Tt. : ‘ s ; mr es = Py s > me . y “v ’ ¢ ’ s > , rr? ‘ } 4 } i : : Lee .* >. i+ > ‘ ’ > > » 4 Tel ’ +> y L ‘ a ; » > 7 ; : ° + ’ >? ’ , , 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 , at ‘ 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 “~ > ? . , r © , r r , ¢ ‘ 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 r , * 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 . ’ 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 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 J . 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 ; x Ve AL & © . >, . . is” A . 4 i? ; i ta ’ ’ , 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 > na io > + , aa r *, a "s © . cyY¥ is 7+ “se La. eeu Ste Wekee ei? . | > ‘ er? ‘ One oe ; he = 5 > ° » I, > ‘ + > - ¥ 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 " ~ & cf yn f | | ~ oon ~ . ee ; = @ er? a 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 a ’ 7 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- el _ - on a t ne “ 4 Yeu re r+ . . - ‘ > . . i . Ve ac e ar . + ;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 e I aiter até ii 1 } tnat tne railiur©e > 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. w re oe ’ ri | , er [ ‘ A J r er er -« 3 La we uw n suf 7 i ‘ Lia *a* 4 ‘ a y é > é ne er , > i. 80 na fa ta ~~ s - 46 “+ a + > y > ‘ a if ré +r ’ re I ; - , ws > .a ; he ’ ae r of +> . r ati is ain b n CU lad w Q ‘ pr pr de pr se . to vs “ - +c 3 ‘ rat nte meé giv the ¢ * 4 ity ov outw ircun pe u revie > fear sé > > fé ‘ ¢ 4 + i ++ te > + oe eweuewr U0 4 - ie ke aus 7 “ y) . he 4 . m4 | a uw 4 2 ‘ « be 4 - he - 3 =] + “4 4 Gd % ‘ ; ” 4 wv) 2 -4 a 4 ~4 . . } ae Ld ‘ © c =) " . . 4 ont zs £ 4 + + wit o be D *) 5 oO row “7 + he ” “— = el rv ) vy 4 ~~ et he ) see s ‘ he ; a wea a= 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 " tl r pena wn r sear y . . r+ : ; pai I ai Ltd it ; ‘ ’ ‘ . mee | ’ ’ . > +>) > . s > ’ >»? > ’ ‘ ‘ " »> . ‘ “ss 2 2 ; . i ‘ , al ; ‘ ‘ ’ , ‘ i s i i n > " > ‘ ‘ . i ~* ¢ ‘ ‘ re » I ‘ > t ~ owe - ‘ : > " > . : + + » rt. ‘ eh © ? ‘ > " ’ > *-, ‘ ’ ’ > ; > > ‘ s ‘ ’ * 4 7 ~ 4 nr " + € 14° ta ‘ . . ‘ . 7 ‘ * 7 ’ » * ; > : ‘ ; > > ¥ + y A * > > " ; 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 ‘ ‘ ‘ > tr 11 ti ‘ Jue j t ~ et © i 2 i. i ‘ ’ . . > _ . 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). --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_1443%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.