Brief filed: 03/20/2024
Documents
Thornell v. Jones
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 22-982
Argument(s)
After careful review of the record, the Ninth Circuit concluded that trial counsel’s failure to develop and present mitigation evidence to the sentencing judge, under Arizona’s now-defunct judicial-sentencing scheme, prejudiced Danny Lee Jones. Applying Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the Ninth Circuit identified a reasonable probability that, absent that error, the sentencer would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death. That opinion is nothing out of the ordinary. It strikes no new ground, it offers no new law, and it marks no factual departure from literally hundreds of other habeas decisions by circuit courts around the country. It is both well-supported and correct.
Petitioner nonetheless contends the Ninth Circuit misapplied Strickland. Petitioner makes that contention not because the court misstated the standard, but because, in petitioner’s view, it failed to give sufficient attention to the district court’s factual conclusions and to the evidence in aggravation. The Ninth Circuit correctly concluded that the balance of evidence in mitigation and aggravation placed this case comfortably among this Court’s precedents finding Strickland prejudice. The decision below should be affirmed.
Author(s)
David M. Porter, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Sacramento, CA; David D. Cole, American Civil Liberties Foundation, Washington, DC; Collin P. Wedel and Christine T. Karaoglanian, Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Bridget Murphy Wholey, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Claudia Van Wyk, American Civil Liberties Foundation, Durham, NC, Jared G. Keenan, American Civil Liberties Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
