Harris By and Through Ramseyer v. Blodgett

• Decision Date: 17 May 1994
• Docket Number: No. C89-307TB.,C89-307TB.
• Citation: 853 F. Supp. 1239
• Parties: Benjamin J. HARRIS, III, by and through Judith H. RAMSEYER, Guardian ad litem, Petitioner, v. James BLODGETT, Superintendent Washington State Penitentiary, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

853 F. Supp. 1239

Benjamin J. HARRIS, III, by and through Judith H. RAMSEYER, Guardian ad litem, Petitioner, v. James BLODGETT, Superintendent Washington State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. C89-307TB.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma.

May 17, 1994.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Allen M. Ressler, Browne & Ressler, Seattle, WA, for petitioner.

Katrin E. Frank, MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless, Seattle, WA, guardian ad litem for petitioner.

John M. Jones and Paul D. Weisser, Washington State Atty. General's Office, Olympia, WA, for respondent.

AMENDED^* DECISION, INCLUDING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; and ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

BRYAN, District Judge.

                                                          INDEX TO DECISION
                Introduction ........................................................................  1247
                Factual and Procedural Background ...................................................  1248
                Issues Presented ....................................................................  1251
                Standard of Review ..................................................................  1252
                Discussion of Issues ................................................................  1253
                ISSUE11.     Whether Harris received effective assistance of counsel before trial
                              during trial, and on post conviction proceedings, including appeal       1253
                              The Standard for Effective Assistance of Counsel.......................  1253
                         1. Deficiency of Performance.......................................  1254
                         2. Prejudice to Defense............................................  1254
                    Ground A.    Counsel did not conduct a thorough investigation of facts
                                  surrounding the charge and possible defenses..................  1255
                    Ground B.    Counsel failed to adequately prepare for trial.................  1255
                    Ground C.    Counsel failed to adequately consult with his client and to
                                  inform him on important issues and decisions regarding his
                                  defense ......................................................  1258
                    Ground D.    Counsel failed to investigate Harris's mental and emotional
                                  status, including mental capacity and incompetence to stand
                                  trial.........................................................  1259
                

                    Ground E.    Counsel failed to challenge admissibility of Harris's Statements .. 1261
                    Ground F.    Counsel failed to properly protect Harris's rights when the
                                  October 22, 1984 statement was made and admitted at trial
                                  and during Harris's testimony during the guilt phase ............. 1261
                    Ground G.    Counsel should have attempted to mitigate with prosecutor
                                  before the prosecutor decided to seek the death penalty .......... 1264
                    Ground H.    Counsel failed to conduct proper voir dire ........................ 1264
                    Ground I.    Counsel failed to object to inadmissible evidence ................. 1265
                    Ground J.    Counsel failed to develop a viable defense strategy ............... 1265
                    Ground K.    Counsel failed to propose, or except to, jury instructions ........ 1266
                    Ground L.    Counsel failed to object to improper comments by prosecutor
                                  during closing arguments in penalty phase ........................ 1267
                    Ground M.    Counsel's closing argument in the guilt phase was deficient ....... 1267
                    Ground N.    Counsel failed to present available evidence during penalty
                                  phase ............................................................ 1268
                    Ground O.    Counsel failed to raise or preserve meritorious issues in
                                  appellate proceedings ............................................ 1271
                    Ground P.    Counsel failed to advise Harris of a conflict of interest ......... 1271
                ISSUE NO. 2.    Whether the admission of prior convictions in 1969 for manslaughter
                                 and assault during the penalty phase violated petitioner's right to
                                 due process ............................................................  1274
                ISSUE NO. 3.    Whether Washington's capital punishment statute is unconstitutional
                                 because it allows consideration of an unconstitutionally obtained
                                 prior conviction during the penalty phase ..............................  1277
                ISSUE NO. 4.    Whether petitioner's incompetency prevented a fair trial ................  1278
                ISSUE NO. 5.    Whether the state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence ...............  1280
                ISSUE NO. 6.    Whether Harris's constitutional rights were violated when his pre-trial
                                 statement of October 22, 1984 was made and admitted at trial ...........  1281
                ISSUE NO. 6a.   Whether Harris properly waived his Fifth Amendment right to
                                 remain silent ........................................................... 1282
                ISSUE NO. 7.    Whether Harris's Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination
                                 was violated by the admission, at trial, of statements made by
                                 Harris to police during the investigation ............................... 1283
                ISSUE NO. 8.    Whether the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty denied
                                 Harris due process, equal protection, and was cruel and unusual
                                 punishment .............................................................. 1284
                ISSUE NO. 9.    Whether, during closing arguments in the penalty phase, the prosecutor
                                 committed error by attempting to minimize the jury's sense
                                 of responsibility for punishment ........................................ 1285
                ISSUE NO. 11.   Whether the Washington State Supreme Court performed an inadequate
                                 proportionality review, thereby violating petitioner's due
                                 process rights .......................................................... 1286
                ISSUE NO. 16.   Whether there is any constitutional infirmity resulting from the
                                 disparity of Harris's death sentence and his co-defendant's acquittal ... 1291
                ISSUE NO. 17.   Whether the inconsistent verdicts are unconstitutional.................... 1292
                ISSUE NO. 18.   Whether Jury Instructions No. 2 and 5, given during the penalty
                                 phase, erroneously encouraged the jury to reach a unanimous
                                 verdict on all issues ................................................... 1292
                ISSUE NO. 19.   Whether death by hanging is unconstitutional as cruel and unusual
                                 punishment .............................................................. 1293
                ISSUE NO. 20.   Whether the requirement that petitioner choose between methods of
                                 execution is unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment ........... 1293
                CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 1293
                                                    LEGEND
                 I. STATE COURT RECORD
                    Vol._____ ........................................................................ "Volume"
                    CP _____ ................................................................. "Clerk's Papers"
                    VRP______ ................................................ "Verbatim Report of Proceedings"
                    Plaintiff's Ex. _____ .............................................. "State Trial Exhibits"
                

                II. U.S. DISTRICT COURT RECORD
                    Evid.TR _____ .................................................. "Testimony of Murray Anderson"
                    Parkhurst Evid.TR_____ .......................................... "Testimony of Sgt. Parkhurst"
                    Stip. Facts No. _____ ..................................... "Stipulation of Facts, Appendix A."
                    Cease Dep. _____ ................................................ "Deposition of Richard Cease"
                    Haist Dep. _____ ................................................. "Deposition of Thomas Haist"
                

THIS MATTER comes before the court on Benjamin A. Harris's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court has considered all pleadings filed in support of and in response to the petition, the evidence adduced at an evidentiary hearing held on Monday, December 20, 1993, including the depositions of Thomas Haist, Richard Cease, John Petrich, M.D. and Allen W. Traywick, Ph.D. The court heard oral arguments of counsel at that hearing and at prior hearings on motions. The court also considered the state court record filed herein, Volumes 1 to 12, trial exhibits, and the U.S. District Court file. The parties entered into a Stipulation of Facts with accompanying documents, filed on October 25, 1993, which is fully incorporated herein by this reference. The Stipulation is attached hereto as Appendix A.

INTRODUCTION

This is not a search for legal technicalities. It is not a search for justification to take, or save, a life. It is not a case about the legal, moral, or social implications of the death penalty. It is not a review of a state case for simple legal error. Neither the question of Harris's guilt nor the advisability of a death sentence will be reexamined here.

This is a review of a state proceeding to determine if federal constitutional requirements were met, and to determine the affect of any constitutional violations on the state proceedings. It is appropriate, under the law, to undertake this procedural review for any person who has lost freedom as a result of a criminal conviction in any court in the United States. Even if petitioner is guilty in fact, and even if he should be put to death, American law says that such a conviction and sentence will not stand unless, and until, the conviction and sentence are determined to be in accord with the U.S. Constitution.

The writ of habeas corpus was first written into English law in 1679, although it...