Robert Murray v. Schriro, No. 08-99008 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of two murders and sentenced to death, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court affirmed the denial of petitioner's Batson v. Kentucky claim where the state court's decision regarding two potential Hispanic jurors was not an unreasonable determination of the facts where the prosecutor proffered race-neutral explanations for his strike of the jurors; affirmed the ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the record did not support a finding that the state court's decision regarding the adequacy of counsel's performance in conducting the mitigation investigation was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts or an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington; and denied petitioner's motion to expand the Certificate of Appealability where such claims were futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus/Death Penalty. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a conviction and capital sentence for murder. The panel first held that the state court’s denial of petitioner’s claim—that the prosecutor violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), by using peremptory challenges to strike two Hispanic potential jurors—was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The panel next held that the state court’s denial of petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence of petitioner’s troubled childhood and impairments was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Finally, the panel declined to grant a motion to expand the certificate of appealability because the district court properly found that allowing petitioner to bring numerous proposed claims in an amended habeas petition would be futile.
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.