Walker v. Martel, No. 11-99006 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseRespondent (the Warden) appealed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner. The court held that the California Supreme Court necessarily decided that it was not reasonably probable that either petitioner's conviction or sentence would have turned out differently had counsel objected to the brace (knee restraint) petitioner wore beneath his clothing during the trial. Given what "prejudice" means in the ineffective assistance of counsel context, the strength of the evidence, the nature of the brace, the atrociousness of petitioner's crimes, and the quality of the mitigation, the court could not say that the state court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus/Death Penalty. The panel reversed the district court’s grant of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a conviction and capital sentence for murder and related crimes. Petitioner Walker contended that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the use of a knee restraint on one of Walker’s legs under his pants, which jurors noticed because it made Walker limp. The panel held that, under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and given the strength of the evidence, the nature of the brace, the atrociousness of Walker’s crimes, and the quality of the mitigation, the California Supreme Court could conclude that it was not reasonably probable that either Walker’s conviction or sentence would have been different had counsel objected to the use of the leg restraint. The panel remanded for the district court to consider other claims held in abeyance pending this appeal. Judge Gould concurred in the majority’s holding as to the guilt phase. However, he would affirm the district court’s grant of relief as to the sentence so that Walker could receive another penalty-phase trial at which he is not improperly shackled so that the jury can weigh the aggravating factors relating to his crimes against the mitigating factors of his youth and family relationships before deciding if he is eligible for the death penalty.
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.