Cases since the last edition will include:

In favor of the Accused or Condemned

• Charles Ray Crawford v. Epps, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26243 (5th Cir 12/2/2009) (unpublished) ‘[W]e grant Crawford a COA on his claim that he was subjected to a psychiatric evaluation of his competency without the benefit of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. To permit the district court an opportunity to develop the record, if necessary, and reconsider the merits of Crawford’s claim, we vacate that portion of its order denying relief on this basis and remand for further proceedings.”

• Mark Gill v. State, 2009 Mo. LEXIS 540 (Mo 12/1/2009) “Although a victim’s character is not typically an issue, when the State introduced evidence of the victim’s good character in the penalty phase, Gill’s counsel should have rebutted the State’s good character evidence with the sexually explicit contents of the victim’s computer. Because his counsel failed to discover the sexually explicit contents of the victim’s computer, Gill’s counsel were ineffective. This Court affirms the denial of the Rule 29.15 motion as to the guilt phase of the trial, but reverses the denial of the motion as to the penalty phase insofar as Gill had ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate the victim’s computer. The case is remanded.”

In favor of the State

• Henry Louis Wallace v. Branker, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26206 (4th Cir 12/2/2009) (unpublished) “We granted a certificate of appealability on two of Wallace’s claims: (1) that pretrial publicity and the state court’s denial of his motion for a change of venue deprived him of an impartial jury and (2) that delayed administration of Miranda warnings rendered his confessions involuntary and therefore inadmissible. After considering these claims, we affirm the district court’s denial of the writ.”  “Habeas petition was properly denied because denying motion to change venue based on pretrial publicity did not deprive inmate of impartial jury under Sixth Amendment because, inter alia, state court reasonably found that pretrial publicity would not have made inmate’s trial a hollow formality and that voir dire provided best indicia of prejudice.” [via LexisOne]

• James  Hunt v. Commonwealth, 2009 Ky. LEXIS 292 (Ky 11/25/2009)

• Dale Wayne Eaton v. State, 2009 WY 144 & 2009 WY 145 (Wyo 11/24/2009) Summary denial of postconviction petition of Wyoming’s death row inmate and remand to set execution date.

• State v. Kerry  Perez, 2009 Ohio 6179 (Ohio 12/2/2009) (dissent) Relief denied, most notably, on use of taped conversations between Appellant and his spouse (the Perez Court here greatly expands the type of materials admissible under the State’s marital privilege) anduse of the “course of conduct” death penalty specification (which draws adissent).

• Ex parte Ramiro Hernandez, WR-63,282-02 (Tex Crim App 11/25/2009) Relief denied without a substantive discussion of the merits.

[Typos included at no extra charge. -k]