DeRosa v. Workman, No. 10-7084 (10th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseOklahoma state prisoner Petitioner James DeRosa was convicted of two counts of first-degree felony murder for the 2000 stabbing deaths of two people, and was sentenced to death on both counts. Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged his convictions and sentences on direct appeal, as well as in an application for state post-conviction relief. He then sought federal habeas relief by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court denied his petition but granted a certificate of appealability (COA) as to one issue: his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Tenth Circuit, in turn, granted a COA on two additional issues: (1) whether the cumulative effect of the improper comments of the prosecuting attorney made during both phases of trial was harmless; and (2) whether allowing the jury to hear the responses of two victim-impact witnesses who testified during the penalty phase of trial was harmless constitutional error. Taking each issue in turn, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Petitioner's convictions, finding that the evidence presented at trial "overwhelmingly" established that Petitioner committed the murders, and that his trial counsel's alleged failure to present evidence of mitigating circumstances was unfounded. The jury found the existence of two aggravating factors with respect to each of the murders. The evidence presented by the prosecution, which was essentially uncontroverted, overwhelmingly supported the jury’s findings. Further, the jury was properly instructed by the trial court on the use of mitigating evidence and its role in the sentencing deliberations, as well as the proper role of victim-impact evidence. Consequently, the Court concluded that the admission of the improper portions of the victim impact testimony did not have a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict."
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 11, 2012.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.